Talk:William Connolley

Vanity?

Is this a vanity page? G-Man 13:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. Look at the page history. Why not list it for deletion? William M. Connolley 16:13, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

I've looked but can't find the original editor who started it. Was it started by William M Connolley by any chance? That particular user does play a part in keeping it up to date. MarkThomas 08:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you look? User:Ed Poor, a long-time contributor and frequent opponent on global warming and related articles started it, as can be seen at the bottom of the page history. Characterising Ed as a "friend" of William stretches it quite a bit, although both try to keep the discourse civil.--Stephan Schulz 11:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, who I note is a Bureaucrat - seems to rather bear out the suggestion that this page exists due to a cabal of WP insiders rather than any actual merit. MarkThomas 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Note!

Note: this is the wiki page about William Connolley. The user talk page of the wiki user William M. Connolley is User talk:William M. Connolley!

Beliefs

The phrasing "he believes" is inadmissible in wikipedia. Please rephrase. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why should such a phrase be inadmissable? William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 19:25:18 (UTC).

Well, it would certaintly look odd to someone reading the article who doesn't know that you use wikipedia, because it looks like wikipedia is making a claim about what you believe, and only you can know what you actually believe (what I mean by that is, wikipedia can't read your thoughts!). It would look much better if it said "He has stated that..." -- Joolz 8 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Why are we saying what he "believes"? We could perhaps quote his published work, if he states that belief in there. But otherwise it doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic to include his beliefs, even if they are pertinent to his work. In a comparable article about a physicist, would we say "X believes that we will soon discover a Higgs boson"? I don't think so. We would say "X is involved in the search for the Higgs boson" maybe.Grace Note 03:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There's some very odd reasoning here, based on an emphasis on the word "believe" that both misrepresents it and gives it far too much weight. Go to Albert Einstein and search for "believe" — there it is: "he believed that, at the core, physical reality behaved deterministically". I think that what's good enough for Einstein is good enough for Connolley. (Try searching Wikipdia for "he believe" — you'll find plenty of examples.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, the difference is that Einstein's beliefs informed his work, and are intrinsically important. He also stated them, and can be quoted doing so. Connolley's beliefs are of course no more important than yours or mine. His work, OTOH, might be of importance. If it substantiates the beliefs, you can achieve the same effect by stating what his work reveals. BTW, appealing to what exists in other articles is not necessarily a winning argument, Mel, because there are plenty of shit articles that need work -- that's to do with being a wiki -- and suggesting that because others are shit, this one might be too just won't do. That's not to say that there is no place for considering a precedent -- just that it is not a "magic bullet" that will kill all objections. Grace Note 06:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In the context of an article on Connolley, his beliefs are indeed more important than yours or mine. I didn't cite the Einstein article as a precedent or a magic bullet, but as an example. I'm taking this to RfC to get some other opinions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC response. I think it clearly is acceptable to take someone's opinions at face value, unless there is a reason to think they are dissembling in some way, and write it up as their belief. The idea that one cannot say, e.g., 'William Connolley believes that it is important to counter scepticism on climate change' is manifestly ludicrous: his actions and statements only make sense if that belief is genuine. David | Talk 09:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is about me, of course, but to address the general principle: there is no reason why a wiki article shouldn't state someones beliefs. Their beliefs are part of the facts about that person. Many of the articles about people involved in climate change state their beliefs. The article on Bush, for example, states that he believes that Kyoto would harm the US economy. I don't see anyone objecting to inclusion of that belief. The article on Sallie Baliunas states her beliefs. Etc etc ad infinitum. William M. Connolley 11:06:29, 2005-07-26 (UTC).

Great, can I then contribute by saying that I believe that "William M. Connolley" is a person of little overall importance who does not in any way merit a page about him on Wikipedia? Thanks. MarkThomas 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I start off by saying I am no fan of MarkThomas's editing style or his general approach to Wikipedia - he knows that, as we have clashed already even though I have only been contributing for a couple of weeks. However I do think in essence he is right here - this page appears to be little more than vanity, and the fact that a good number of the edits made to the article, and responses to queries as to the existence and content of this article on this talk page, have been made by the SUBJECT of the article is evidence in itself. The fact the subject is an admin makes the whole thing even more questionable, and for this reason I think the page should be deleted. --SandyDancer 12:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Their other accomplishments are what make Bush's and Einstein's beliefs intrinsically encyclopedic. Everyone knows their accomplishments, so beliefs are relevant as "reasons for" or "motivations behind" the well known persons and their deeds. Dr. Connolley, I don't believe you've reached the level of accomplishment and fame that makes your beliefs intrinsically encyclopedic. I think they can be included in the article, but they definitely should not be the central point of large sections of it as it is written now unless your beliefs in and of themselves make you famous. (I don't believe that can be the case here, as your beliefs seem to be in the mainstream of accepted science, with no major breakthroughs in and of themselves. Famous, in this case, would be either revolutionary, or the those of a famous kook.) Your activities and accomplishments should be the central theme of this article, although beliefs can be included as motivation for those. Otherwise, it reads like a vanity page, essay, original research, and not at all proper for an encyclopedia. Unfocused 12:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Fame isn't the issue, nor is revolution. Again, Wikipedia is full of articles which mention their subject's views when those views aren't exciting or innovative in themselves — they're of interest because they tell us something more about the subject. The same aplies here. (Note, incidentally, that there are plenty of editors here, not to mention many people in certain political camps, who reject the views that Connolley holds; to say that he holds them isn't like saying that he approves of world peace or that he believes that the Earth isn't flat.)
2. We're also not talking about whether or not the article should be here; given that it is, should its subject's beliefs be included? No-one has said anything to suggest that they shouldn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I could tell you more about my neighbor's beliefs, but that doesn't make my neighbor's beliefs encyclopedic.

That either ignores or completely misses my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Note that I haven't said that Dr. Connolley's beliefs don't belong. I did say that they should not be the main focus of the article; both the beliefs aren't unique enough to make Dr. Connolley notable by themselves, and Dr. Connolley isn't notable enough by himself the make an article primarily about his beliefs encyclopedic. His beliefs are relevant, and can belong here, but in the currently written form, they certainly don't!

A rewording of the current text could save most of it. How about starting with his activities to promote a "public understanding of science", then stating his beliefs as his motivation for the activites? How about starting with his activities regarding global warming, then affirming them with notes about his beliefs? Further, can you find third party reference to his beliefs? If not, it's expository essay and original research and doesn't belong. It reads like soliloquy. Personally, I'd even accept a "Statement of Beliefs" on his Wikipedia user page as a reference, but again; in this article, statements of belief must be in support of activities and accomplishments, rather than simply being posted as fact.

Belief in mainstream science alone isn't significant enough to belong in this article. It is his unusual levels of activities in advocacy for those beliefs which are encyclopedic. Although his position and achievements are notable, Dr. Connolley simply isn't notable enough to make his beliefs the primary focus of an encyclopedia article. Unfocused 14:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have decided that "beliefs" is the primary focus of the article. It isn't. 3/4 of the text is publications - this is the primary focus. William M. Connolley 19:09:47, 2005-07-26 (UTC).

67% of the narrative begins with statements of your beliefs. The narrative is the article; the list of publications is supporting documentation. Submit a list of publications to a peer reviewed science journal and they won't accept it as an article either. The narrative in this article isn't proper encyclopedic coverage, it's exposition.

As I mentioned, the beliefs are OK, but should be phrased in support of your work rather than the center of the coverage. They shouldn't be the 'lead story', they should be as glue added on that explains the motivations behind the accomplishments, activities, and achievements, which are the true reason you're encyclopedic. The publications list is impressive, but it is a list. It doesn't really say much specific about you in the way narrative paragraphs do. Unfocused 19:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. For a scientist, publications are the work, not supporting documentation. It would be nice to link them into a cute storyline, but that would only be fluff: its the pubs that matter, from the POV of the science. The beliefs aren't the science, of course, but meta-science or something. William M. Connolley 22:32:25, 2005-07-26 (UTC).

Please show me an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that consists of only cited works. Wikipedia's biographical coverage is, in a manner of speaking, a massively peer reviewed biographical journal. The "fluff" you speak of is the primary reason for the article; you cannot possibly expect the typical reader to research every cited work that is listed in order to know about you: the points of at least some your published papers MUST be summarized and included.

For a scientific journal, summarizing your previous works would be "fluff". For a biographical article, a summary of your previous works and publications is the article itself. Statements of your beliefs are fluff in both cases, but acceptable within appropriate context for the second.

If all that results from providing an "Executive Summary" of your published papers for typical readers who don't care to read all the source documents is only "fluff", then you wouldn't be as encyclopedic as your list of publications would otherwise indicate. (I don't believe that to be the case.) I want to know why you're encyclopedic, and a statement of your beliefs doesn't qualify. Unfocused 16:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more material — but not that that is good reason to delete what's already there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No, having a shortage of material is not a good reason to delete what's there, but I've already stated very good reasons to rephrase what is there (or was there, depending on the version of the article is present at the time you read this). Having each paragraph in the article start with a statement of the subject's belief is a creed, not an encyclopedic biography. No article should focus on beliefs of someone not otherwise famous. No reader will care what his beliefs are until AFTER they know what his credentials and accomplishments are. After credentials, accomplishments and achievements are cited, only then a reader may care about the beliefs that motivate the individual to meet these high standards. Otherwise you may as well be talking about my neighbor's cat's beliefs. Unfocused 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The article should what scientific work he has done. Unfortunately it seems he hasn't done anything of any note and therefore he doesn't deserve his page. So the article's crap, but won't pass through VfD. Dunc|☺ 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by McClenon

I see that there has been a lot of argument about what should be in this article. I think it is more appropriate to discuss the article than to discuss the discussions.

The statement as to what Connolley believes is more a summary of his philosophy than of his scientific work. Since he is a scientist, the lead paragraph should summarize what his research has focused on. I see a list of his works, but an encyclopedic article should summarize them. For instance, if his work has been largely on the subject of global warming, then that should be said. If his views are accepted by much of the scientific community but also the subject of scholarly disagreement, that should be said. The article says that he believes that there is a scientific consensus on global warming, but it does not summarize what the consensus is. I assume that he says that the consensus is that global warming is taking place and that he has made quantitative statements about its extent.

The statement about his beliefs is incidental unless it figures in a statement of his involvement in public debate over issues such as global warming.

The article at present does not state why he is important. At the same time, the Wikipedia consensus is that the article should not be deleted. This implies that the article is a stub and needs expansion. I am taking the liberty of putting a stub tag on it. Robert McClenon 14:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This is, more or less, what I've been trying to state since I reviewed the article. Unfocused 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

1. It's not possible to disentangle a scientist's philosophy from their science; the latter is impossible without the former (though unfortunately the former is sometimes held unreflectivity).
2. I've changed the two occurrences of "believe" that seemed to be aggravating some editors, and replaced them with verbs that I hope will stll the controversy.

Someone has added: Connolley has published many articles in support of a consensus in the scientific community about climate change topics such as global warming. As far as I know, this is wrong. Where it impinges, my papers tend to adopt the std view that takes GW as a given, but I doubt (m)any of mine fall under explicit support of consensus. I wonder if it might be possible for people who don't know whats going on to avoid editing the article? William M. Connolley 17:27:54, 2005-08-02 (UTC).

So, you say your articles pretty much fall in line with scientific consensus, yet they don't support that consensus? They provide evidence for the consensus view, but don't support it? I haven't read your papers, nor has anyone provided appropriate summaries, but I really do think you're deliberately making a logical conundrum just to have a reason to whine based on what you've just written.

If you don't like it, edit it back out, then. Want it less explicitly in support of consensus? Then make it less explicit in support of consensus. It's a Wiki. Maybe you should do it instead of complaining. However, if the article is either going to be about your beliefs or focused on your beliefs as a central point, then you're simply not worthy of an article.

Since I think you are worthy of an article, I made a good faith attempt to correct a very poor, unencyclopedic biographical article. Perhaps it might be possible you keep that in mind before you whine about someone having the audacity to actually make an edit. Unfocused 19:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're editing in good faith. I think you're trying to score points and you're editing something that you clearly don't understand. Why not go away and try to find something that you do understand? William M. Connolley 20:15:33, 2005-08-02 (UTC).

You obviously know a lot about climate science, but you also don't seem to know anything about biographies, nor do you know a thing about how to work well with others. Why don't you just climb down off your high horse and realize that biographical encyclopedia articles need to be written a little differently than your personal weblog? There, you're free to state your creed and beliefs all you want. Here, beliefs aren't enough to make you encyclopedic. It's your work and research and accomplishments that grant you that condition, NOT your beliefs. Unfocused 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

While WMC should have responded more emolliently, he's essentially right; the edit misrepresents him, while what it replaced didn't. Unfocused's response suggests an unfamiliarity with what happens in science, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't edit this article, only that he should be prepared to accept his misunderstanding gracefully. (Has anyone ever knocked two heads together more gently than that?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that his edit was in good faith and in my opinion it improved the article, whilst reverting it did not. If you're going to tell other editors to "go away" will you be making any improvments to the article yourself? -- Joolz 21:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

(I didn't see Mel's reply when making mine)Is this version factually inaccurate or misrepresentative? -- Joolz 21:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it removes information. Secondly, yes, its wrong. It makes the mistake that seems to be common amongst the laity that most/all climatological research is directed towards GW. And published many articles in the scientific community is a completely weird way (sorry M.E.) of describing publication.

I don't see why you didn't simply fix it and add any information that you felt was missing back back in, instead of just reverting everything. -- Joolz 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I thought the version I reverted to was better. William M. Connolley 22:17:31, 2005-08-02 (UTC).

What Is the Consensus?

The article states that Connolley has published many articles stating that there is a consensus on various climate change issues. That doesn't tell me what he thinks the consensus is. If the article does not summarize what he says the consensus is, and does not otherwise summarize his publications, then it is just a publication list, and Wikipedia is not a bibliography. Robert McClenon 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not... a list of things that wikipedia is not. But I've added some helpful links anyway. Remember folks: editing on topics that you don't understand is a bad idea. William M. Connolley 17:13:18, 2005-08-03 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a list of helpful links. You're missing the point again. You should either summarize the consensus, or remove reference to it. Encyclopedia articles should not require further research on the part of the reader to gain basic understanding. This article doesn't provide any basic understanding of your works in its current form without the reader doing further research both off site and offline. That makes this article a very poor one in its current form. Unfocused 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as Robert McClenon when I read this page. What is the consensus? It's not that I can't find out myself, for example by following the link to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the paragraph reads very strange without this information. /skagedal^[talk] 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing a sub-trivial publication

I'm removing the letter to New Scientist again because it is nothing more than a brief letter to the editor that references other online publications. I would post it, complete, if it weren't a copyright violation to do so. It is that short, and that empty of content. I encourage anyone considering replacing it to actually read it first. It is a four sentence letter to the editor that references two of WMC's other online postings. This is certainly NOT an encyclopedic reference that belongs in anyone's biographical article. Unfocused 23:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

We could put it in the external links section if anyone really wants to keep it in badly. -- Joolz 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a copyright violation to post it here, especially if you check with WMC first. Given the animus that seems to have informed recent edits to this article, I'd like to see the evidence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've happy to release the text under GFDL. I think unfocussed is really getting rather carried away in a quite unpleasant fashion. NS didnt think it was empty of content, since they published it. Tying together various threads, as the letter does, and correcting misapprehensions is valuable. This is all about the "ice age myth" stuff... I'll add it to the article then we can all be happy. William M. Connolley 12:31:37, 2005-08-04 (UTC).

I believe there's a significant enough chance that you're wrong about the copyright, because the letter was submitted to and published by someone other than WMC. That's why I won't reproduce it here. You could have found the "evidence" yourself with a minimum of effort. However, it only takes a second to click the link you reinserted without taking the time to research what it was. Please do so now, and you'll see why it doesn't belong. Why would you reinsert it without taking that moment to know what you're doing? It's a four line "letter to the editor", not a significant publication. It wouldn't belong in ANYONE's biography; it simply isn't significant enough. Unfocused 12:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the point?

I know this article has been through AfD twice, but I just have to ask: Where is the meat of this article? Take out the various extra-curricular activities and websites, and you're left with "Climatologist who believes there is an international consensus regarding global warming. And has published several papers." That's not exactly Ripley's Believe It or Not. There is no summary of, or even mention of, Connolley's contribution to scientific knowledge. RMoloney 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I was arguing many weeks prior. Have a look at the history and the talk page here to see struggle I went through in order to remove a four line "letter to the editor" from the "Publications" section. A letter to the editor! As a credited publication! You'll see why I haven't bothered with this article. It's basically a "this is what I believe, and these are a couple of my hobbies, and here are the titles of some articles I wrote" piece. Based on the response I got earlier, especially from the article's subject, I decided I'd rather edit elsewhere since he seems to be so happy with a vacuous little fluff piece like this. I don't see any reason why we should have an article on him based on the current content, but at least he's not overstating his accomplishments, so I don't see any harm in just letting it sit here. Unfocused 03:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good. Then do so, and don't be malicious. William M. Connolley 09:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

Read your own earlier comments on this very page, and you may understand why no one other than my own stubborn self is still interested in improving this article. You've driven them off. Unfocused 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you are interested in improving it. You certainly haven't. William M. Connolley 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

If you think a four line letter to the editor is a credited scientific publication worthy of note, and that blogging and posting on Usenet are worthy accomplishments instead of the personal hobbies that they are, then no wonder you don't see my edits as improvements. I would really like to see a good, comprehensive article on you here, but in order to do so, we have to apply a little scrutiny to the content and apply some standards. In removing that letter to the editor, I've definitely improved this article.

If you claim petty activities as worthy accomplishments, it only makes you look like you have low standards, which I am certain is untrue. Please think about this question for a moment with an open mind: Do you want the article on you to be about "an excellent scientist and climate modeler who also happens to like to be active in various internet forums" or "some internet blogger with strong opinions, a nice job and a science degree"? Do you see the difference, and why I'm trying to nudge this article toward the former?

Unfortunately, the article in its current state is much more like a puff piece, as expressed by almost every new editor to visit this talk page. In addition to my comments above, have a look a the comments of G-Man, mikka, Joolz, Grace Note, Dunc, Robert McClenon, and now RMoloney. These comments aren't meant to insult you, they're meant to improve the article about you. Unfocused 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly second that - a criticism of this article should not be viewed as a personal attack on the subject. I am a firm believer in wikiquette, assuming good faith, etc., but those principles do not extend to keeping silent about deficiencies in articles. And the article as it stands is deficient. It is an article about a scientist which does not give a summary of his scientific work. So could I appeal to "his belief that scientists can and should participate in the public understanding of science," and politely ask User:William M. Connolley, as the only Wikipedian currently contributing who is familiar with that scientist's work, to please summarise it in the article? RMoloney 18:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I decided I'd rather edit elsewhere since he seems to be so happy with a vacuous little fluff piece like this. is clearly a personal attack. Unfocussed entire attitude to this article is negative, quite why I've offended him I'm unsure. If this article is so unimportant to her, she should leave it alone. As to my adding content... I've been attacked before for autobiography. Now you're attacking me for non-autobiography. Make up your minds. As to the science: the papers are most important. William M. Connolley 19:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

Reading your various contributions William, it seems to be a fairly standard technique of yours to threaten anyone daring to question your status and the existence of this page (which you regularly edit yourself) with personal attack labelling. I wonder where you learned to do that? I also wonder, does anyone have access to a process whereby Connolley's material in publications could be independently assessed for fame/worthiness/accuracy, etc? Kind of a Wikipedia importance peer review. What we really need are some contributions from climate scientists not working for BAS and who are not WP admins to come to this page and comment on it's importance. Thanks. MarkThomas 09:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was rather rude of me, to attack the article, then connect to your favor for the article. I regret and apologize for connecting your favor of the article as it is written. My action sort of matches the attitude you've shown me since I started editing this article (I wonder if it might be possible for people who don't know whats going on to avoid editing the article? and Why not go away and try to find something that you do understand? and Remember folks: editing on topics that you don't understand is a bad idea.) Even in your most extreme comments you really haven't offended me to any degree because frankly, I am comfortable in my knowledge of how to write good biographical articles.

As to the quotes above... I remember them, but can't find them. Can you source them and I'll support them (or withdraw them). William M. Connolley 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

They're contained in the text above, here on this talk page. I don't think I'd worry about them, especially now that we're seeing progress on the article that we all can agree with. Unfocused 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If the scientific papers are most important, which I agree with, then why isn't there a single summary of any of them? An executive summary of the salient points of each paper would be just what this article needs. And if there's real meat to the content such as that, then trivial information such as Usenet posting and blogging doesn't look so out of place anymore, so you wouldn't find me complaining about that being the core of the article.

The autobiography you were criticized for before was simply stating your creed and beliefs, rather than stating your scientific works related to those. Just as Tony Blair's beliefs wouldn't be encyclopedic content if he weren't famous for some other reason, your beliefs mean nothing here until you've established your notability with a summary of some of your scientific achievements.

Finally, the correct pronoun in reference to me is "he". Unfocused 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad you told me that, but it wasn't obvious from your username. William M. Connolley 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

Firstly, I find the statement "Unfocussed entire attitude to this article is negative, quite why I've offended him I'm unsure" quite worrying. It shows that you do not distinguish between Unfocused's attitude to you and to the article about you. That is one reason why the guideline against writing autobiographical articles exists.

Secondly, yes, the papers are the most important thing regarding Connolley's scientific work. But remember, Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for academics. So consider a 15 year old, living in rural Ireland, say. He has no access to the scientific journals in which Connolley's papers are published, and even if he did, he would not have the scientific training necessary to read and understand them. Which is exactly why encyclopedias such as this exist: to summarise the information in a form which is understandable to the intelligent layperson.

Finally, you seem unwilling to summarise the results of your scientific work. is there an explanation for this? I'd even acccept: "It takes time and I couldn't be bothered," but I am at a loss as to why it has become almost a moral principle to you. RMoloney 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that UF has just apologised for -ve comments about me, I don't understand your first para. Secondly, this is specialised stuff and probably not for all. So what? Thirdly, I'd be happy to summarise my work. As I said (and you don't seem to have taken on board) I was bitten for that. If its now generally agreed that I'm allowed to summarise the science, then great: I will. William M. Connolley 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

Thank you. In my opinion, the article is a lot better now. RMoloney 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, good, next stop tropical teleconnections! William M. Connolley 21:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

I commend and welcome the new changes. This is exactly the sort of summarized research that I was hoping to see all along. More along these lines and everyone who visits this article will understand just why you are a notable scientist. Being notable for your research also validates your contributions on blogs, Usenet and Wikipedia as genuine "contributions to public understanding" as well, since now they are in the context of a notable scientist. Unfocused 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Public understanding of science

Probably the correct section header (if you insist on splitting it into a section, it seems rather short to me and a section header unneeded) is "public understanding of science". Thats what my work calls it, when scientists stoop down from their ivory tower to explain to the general public. Its encouraged. Having it retitled "hobbies" appears to me gratuitously offensive. William M. Connolley 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

b-date

Sorry about the date ... ... should've thought that you'd stated it in the "euro" format ... J. D. Redding 07:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

William Michael Connolley * - Green Party

• WMC Green Party

Connolley, were you a Green Party canidate? J. D. Redding

This should be added: South Cambridgeshire District Council, UK - 5 May 2005 William Michael Connolley, 28 Silverdale Avenue, The Green Party, 438, Hardwick; Vacant seats: 1 | Electorate: 7,249 | Ballot Papers Issued: 5,274 | Turnout: 72.7% | Papers rejected: 24" J. D. Redding 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [438 is the vote for as far as i can tell ... 1/7 of the winnner]

He's admitted on a talk page that he is in the party, so I assume this is him. It seems he stood for South Cambridgeshire District Council in 2002, 2004, and 2005 [1].

I was going to add this, when I noticed this comment. I will wait in case there are objections to my adding it, as there seems to be a lot of debate over what should be included in this article.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely him as he admits to being the South Cambridgeshire Green Party's webmaster [2]. BTW, he also on the county council site's list of candidates, but I assume that is just because it includes candidates for the district councils.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WMC POV'ed

WMC POV'ed this page. He removes factual info (to "correct" it to his "truth" ("sadly", he is completely biased)) ...

As a sidenote ... WMC "rm yucky footnotes" that point out that most of the notes are to pages that he has control (eg., realclimate.org; mustelid.blogspot) or that he may not want exposed (eg., the sci.environment post railling againt NASA; Connolley believes the Earth is to be in global warming (and has spoken out against individuals and groups that do not fully this theory (including NASA) - from the ref|NoGlobalWarming http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/54b037867f387138/b7c641cab7b035dd?lnk=st&rnum=57#b7c641cab7b035dd ).

Also ... there wasn't any "dupl" ... oh well, it's POV tagged now ... J. D. Redding 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I went over the article, and found nothing POV. It may not contain everything you like, but I did not find your additions particularly noteworthy or releveant. Hence, I've removed the POV tag. On the other hand, William probably should not edit this article, either. Please point out inaccuracies here on talk. --Stephan Schulz 01:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a vanity page

This is clearly a vanity page, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This man has not made significant, notable contributions to his purported field (the scientific merit of which is questionable to begin with); and the only reason the articles for deletion have failed is because of rampant cronyism on Wikipedia. Very few "keep" votes countered anything proponents of removal said. --NEMT 13:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you aware that the page has been created by Ed Poor, someone who has been very critical of WMC's stand on climate change? Calling this "cronyism" is a bit surprising. If you doubt the scientific merit of climate research, I suspect you are not a climate researcher. So how do you evaluate the significance and notability of a contribution in that field? Finally, all this is irrelevant, as the criterion for inclusion is notability of the subject, not his or her contributions, or merit of the field they work in. --Stephan Schulz 15:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Had you taken the time to read my comment, you'd realize I attributed the afd vote results to cronyism, not the creation of the page. Not every scientist in the world needs an encyclopedia page, and if this man were not an Wikipedia user I am certain he would not have one. He doesn't have any particularly important/noteworthy accomplishments, nor is his work broadly published or referenced. Like I said, this is a vanity page and this information belongs on his User Info, not an article. Simply agreeing with the field establishment does not make one a noteworthy climate researcher. I think Dunc said it best on the second afd discussion when commenting on a potential Wiki policy on user articles: "You mean a policy 'like don't create a page on your mate'? Or 'admins should never close the VFDs on the unencyclopedic pages they created in the first place'? Oh never mind. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)" --NEMT 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're puzzled by NEMT's sudden interest in this page, [3] and around explains it clearly enough William M. Connolley 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, and I find this rather petty and a bit sad...--Stephan Schulz 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly didn't arrive here after an exhaustive search for information on sub-sub-marginal "climate researchers." Note the pronounced lack of rebuke of any arguments against this article's encyclopedic value. --NEMT 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

His publication list should be removed from the article, his own website is sufficent. Plus, it won't look so-much like a vanity piece without the publication list. JeffBurdges 19:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. After all, show me any university professor or researcher in the world without a publication list of comprable or greater size. I've still yet to see what justifies the existance of this article other than his numerous pals here on Wikipedia. --NEMT 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the pedigree of this, as pointed out by WMC, and NEMT's peculiar disdain for the well-established and important field of climate research, I don't really understand why anyone's paying any attention to him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing to express "disdain" for the field of climate research, I've just pointed out the lack of significance of the contribution to the field by this particular "climate researcher." What I don't understand is why an extremely obscure individual is allowed to keep a vanity article. It's one thing to misinterpret Wiki policy, it's quite another to maintain a pointless vanity page as a site admin. --NEMT 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To refresh your mind: "This man has not made significant, notable contributions to his purported field (the scientific merit of which is questionable to begin with)... ". And "this extemely obscure individual" is not "keeping" a vanity article. About 30 editors have contributed to it. It's a reasonably accurate and useful article. It has survived two VFDs. Notability is relative...WMC is well known on Wikipedia, sci.environment, and for his work on RealClimate. "William M. Connolley" gets 64000 hits on Google, and, at a glance, the first 30 all seem to refer to him. --Stephan Schulz 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the remark "the scientific merit of which is questionable to begin with" was in reference to his published works as they relate to the field, not the field itself. Sorry for the confusion. Additionally, those of you who have responded to my comments here have somewhat proved my point. Rather than countering my arguments against the appropriateness of this article you simply look for semantic problems with my wording and question my motivation (both of which seem to disagree with Wikipedia's policies on assuming good faith and discouraging ad-hominems). This isn't something I plan to press, I just wanted to get it out there and make sure people realize this individual's conduct (re: supporting vanity article of questionable significance) is suspect for someone who is supposed to be an asset to the community. --NEMT 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If that was your intention, you need to work on your grammar. However, assuming good faith: Do you have any reason to question the scientific merit of William's publications? They appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed publications. AGF goes both ways...

As for the rest: I have answered you, pointing out that over 30 people have worked on the page (so it hardly is a vanity page), and that the subject is reasonably notable, as attested e.g. by Google.--Stephan Schulz 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

His work seems to be primarily focused on towing the line of the climate research establishment, and doesn't appear to expand significantly on what is considered the consensus of most researchers in the field. Additionally, the volume of his published work isn't noteworthy compared to thousands of other researchers in scientific fields who do not have encyclopedia articles (and are coincidentally not Wikipedia admins). --NEMT 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly qualified to judge contributions in climate research - it's work enough to referee in my own field. However, at my superficial level, the work seems fine. What exactly is "the climate research establishment"? It sounds like you consider wild-out nonsense to be more valuable than solid work, as it does not "tow the line", but tries to "expand the consensus". Anyways, there is a double fallacy in your reasoning. Not everything that is notable is in Wikipedia (yet). Moreover, a publication record is not the only reason for notability. --Stephan Schulz 01:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is his work is neither unique nor is it anything new or groundbreaking, nor is it overwhelmingly published or referenced. He's just another run of the mill researcher in his field. --NEMT 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Publications List

NEMT, I was not objecting to the article, almost all established scientists are more notable than porn stars or pokemon. I was objecting to the inclusion of the publication list itself. A publication list belongs on personal or university web pages, not an encyclopedia. It causes people to say "vanity page" without even reading the page. So the list needs to be deleted from the article. But the article itself should remain. JeffBurdges 02:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew what you meant. In any event, I'm fairly certain more people could identify any given Pokemon character or porn star than William Connolly. Additionally, the impact pornography and Pokemon have had on people is much more significant than this man's run of the mill research. There are also drastically fewer porn stars and Pokemon characters than there are published scientists (whether this should be taken as a comment on today's society remains to be seen). --NEMT 02:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's extensive coverage of "low grade" pop culture, realitive to its coverage of other issues, is infinitely more "dangerous" to the encyclopedia than say the inclusion of 50% of tenured faculty. I see no basis for your claims about his research. His publications are in varied journals of acceptable impact factor given his field, therefore he is notable enough for wikipedia. Your objections to his field itself are not particularly relevant here. JeffBurdges 03:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never objected to the field of climate research, there should certainly be information on climate research on Wikipedia. What I object to is the inclusion of an article devoted to someone who has done relatively little to advance or alter the canon of the field. If you don't see it as a clear case of Wiki-Cronyism, well, no ad-hominems. --NEMT 03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And I suspect you have an opinion on how that canon should be altered? JeffBurdges 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly. My motivation here is to bring attention to the inappropriateness of this article, not champion any specific scientific theory's agenda. Once again, assume good faith.--NEMT 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, noteworthiness of academics is best left up to other academics. You can try to asses the impact factor of the journals they publish in, but the resulting numbers very wildly depending upon field, or even sub-field. And may be meaningless for some disciplines (like mathematics).

A non-academic often can identify a crackpot academic, but not a borring one. Its virtually impossible to take a non-academic seriously when they criticize an academic for "towing the party line", as the actual themes academics use to guide their work are quite subtle, and rarely explained, even in such a high profile field. Do you even have any idea what the "party line" here would be? JeffBurdges 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff - thanks for your comments. But I disagree with you very strongly about the publication list (and not just for me - for any scientist). Wiki is an encyclopedia - that includes important facts like what you've published. Saying the info is available elsewhere just isn't the right way to look at it. And a publication list is *important* - ask any scientist William M. Connolley 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So, by your logic, everyone who's ever published something regarding climate research should be in an encyclopedia? I'll have to remember to pick up the abridged version if Wiki ever goes to print. --NEMT 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, there is no such expression as "tow the line"; it's "toe the line". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew there was something weird about the expression, but could not put my finger on it. The connotations did not quite fit... --Stephan Schulz 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, are you sure the e doesn't become a w when changing the tense, though? I've never seen it in print. --NEMT 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, different root words and different meanings. To "toe the line" is to step ("on your toes") up to or along a line, being careful not to cross (or, potentially, leave) it. To "tow the line" is to pull on a rope. Both could be used to describe loyalty to e.g. a party position, but the first one is restrictive (don't go beyond), the second one is active (to help pull along). To my knowledge, only the first one is a standing phrase in English.--Stephan Schulz 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

William, A publication list is clearly important, but I don't think its meaningful to readers of an encyclopedia, heck its only vaguely meaningful to other academics, its a general summery of the research that encyclopedia readers are looking for.

Also, publication lists are part of job application materials, and fairly personal, so I don't think wikipedia should provide possibly conflicting lists. For example, OR usually forbids inclusion of accepted, but not yet published articles. You don't want search comittees comparing diffrent publication lists! A deep link to the list/cv on a personal web page is better, and stays up to date.

Heh, thanks Mel.  :) JeffBurdges 15:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. With regard to the list of publications, though, don't most articles on academics have them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Its usually heavely abridged, but I must admit most academics' articles are stubs. I try to read some non stubs. JeffBurdges 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all you William Watchers. I just joined your club. It would be better to discuss William's most important publications in the context of what they said that represented an advance in the field, so it would be good if they could be woven into the description of his work where appropriate. For example, "Dr. Einstein published 'The General Theory of Relativity' in 1920, in which he argues that_____". Regardless of the citation format used in this encyclopedia entry, I see no reason why it can't list his most important publications.

By the way, I see that all the publications shown are post-2001. Even if the science in the older publications has been superseded, if any of them were particularly important at the time of publication (just speculating), I would list them rather than newer articles that are more current but less noteworthy. --Ssilvers 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics

IMO, The article should list the public offices that WMC has held or campaigned for. --Ssilvers 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a parish councillor for Coton. Campaigning... well, I've never seriously campaigned William M. Connolley 07:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it. I decided against adding any family info, although many bios note it. Ssilvers 11:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what these "many bios" are Ssilvers? Try as I might, I've been unable to find anything else on the nets that points to William Connolley's importance, let alone an actual "biography" of the great man. Where else is there a biography of this high achiever? Or is it enough just to be an Oxbridge man? MarkThomas 11:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Publications Revisited

I saw that many more publications are listed on Connolley's work bio online than are listed here. Are the ones listed here the most notable? --Ssilvers 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You could check the history. I think they got trimmed. There was some discussion about it :-( William M. Connolley 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, they were trimmed, but would you say that the ones currently listed are the most important of all the publications? --Ssilvers 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on deleting this page

I've looked into this user / vanity page and the above debates in some more detail. First off, Connolley's biog page from the BAS site: 1. What we clearly have here is a fairly ordinary scientific researcher at the BAS, one of many. He does not particularly seem to stand out from other similar climate researchers at BAS. He does not google strongly other than for this page. There are no media mentions of him that I can locate and he has published a few papers, along with many thousands of similar lower-echelon researchers.

It's clear that the deletion discussions and final outcomes were driven by Connolley's friends and associates on _Wikipedia_ as an _admin_ and this is unfortunately very typical of the Cabalism that WP offers now. His admin user page begins: I am now an Admin; see-also /3RR. I'm part of WP:100 & I'm 359!. Vanity on this page and vanity on that. I propose we have another deletion debate on this page but we need to prepare the ground better and be factual in the approach. There are very good grounds for removing this page, if only that Connolley himself repeatedly edits it. MarkThomas 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is nothing but a vanity page. I don't know how you go about setting up a vote on removing this page but if you set it up I will vote for deleting this page. ICGAFFL, Duke53 | ^Talk 13:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're wondering what prompted the above, the answer is [4] William M. Connolley 10:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, prior assumption of bad faith there William, which I believe to be against WP guidelines? Actually I was very happy to accept my ban in the end. But it did alert me to this page and looking at it, I'm afraid it rather sticks out as vanity publishing. Do you not think that you should at least stop correcting it? MarkThomas 10:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I avoid editing it now but I do correct errors, that seems only sensible. Why do you think leaving in a mis-spelling of Coton is a good idea? William M. Connolley 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Senior Scientific Officer at BAS

Does anyone know the various paygrades and status of different job roles at BAS? Connolley is a Senior Scientific Officer and I understand from other bodies this to be a fairly lowly role, on a salary of about £27K or similar, can anyone confirm? Thanks. MarkThomas 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

De-vanitising puff page

I've deleted a lot of the more obvious puff fluff - perhaps since the WP admins won't let us delete the vanity page of one of their buddies, they will at least let us poor humble ordinary editors get it into the sort of shape you would expect from a regular vanity page? Thanks. MarkThomas 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted undiscussed rectifications of my discussed edits by user Guettarda, note that these seem to be made almost within seconds on what would otherwise be a trivial user page, suggesting that my suspicion that what we have here is a cabal of editors is confirmed. MarkThomas 12:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(a) It's called a watchlist

(b) When you edit someone's user page to make spurious complaints, this big orange bar pops up at the top of the page

(c) You are abusing the use of vandalism-reversion tools to advance your agenda. Don't! Guettarda 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could actually read a discussion or contribute to it before reverting someone's edits, instead of just WP rule point scoring? The abuse here is coming from yourself - there is ample justification on this page for either deleting or severely editing what appears to be a vanity page. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid that the changes you were doing can be viewed as vandalism. You removed factual information (his degree), as well as removing Category:Living people. If you disagree that this article should exist, take it to AFD. Syrthiss 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual but unimportant. Another admin speaks I'm afraid. Do you have your own vanity page as well Syrthiss? MarkThomas 13:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and search. I'm sure your assumption of bad faith will guide you to it. Syrthiss 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith can only possibly be true when they are "assumptions" - given the obvious history on this page of grotesque disregard of WP guidelines by an _administrator_ backed up by other _administrators_, I think we defenders of WP are entitled to (a) some respect and (b) being listened to when we are trying to challenge such obvious cabalistic POVitude. Sad evidence that a bunch of utter halfwits have been allowed through as editors, God help Wikipedia's honesty and progress. This particular RPG aint no good any more! MarkThomas 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack warning incoming at a talkpage near you. Syrthiss 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theoretists should also note that this page was created long before WMC became an admin.--Stephan Schulz 14:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, and not that I'm ascribing motives of any kind mind you (because that would be bad), but I do recall that Mark was blocked on a 3RR vio by WMC...I mean, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, and I'm not too sure why I'm bringing it up, but, well, ya just never know... •Jim62sch• 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Correcting multiple breaches of vanity guidelines

This page is in breach of multiple clauses of WP:Vain and I have attempted to correct them. Other admins and supporters of William Connolley have attempted to delete these justified changes, including Connolley himself, further supporting the case that he is in serial breach. Do the guidelines apply to admins or not? MarkThomas 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not justified these changes (a generic claim of "vanity fluff" is neither justification nor discussion), and I fail to see how your changes improve the article. They remove factual information.--Stephan Schulz 14:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Mark, stop the wikilawyering, "that he is in serial breach". Please. Oh, btw, you mean "material breach"...unless you meant "cereal" breach as in he forgot to finish his oatie-o's. •Jim62sch• 21:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusing him of Wikilawyering seems here to simply be a desperate attempt to discredit the argument he is making, which seems perfectly valid to me. His approach isn't very constructive but his essential point has such force that I don't see how you can justify not addressing it. --SandyDancer 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the argument he is making. This article is balanced and correct. His changes deleted useful information. I agree that William should not directly editing this article, however, from what I have seen he has only contributed trivial corrections, not real content. That may be a sign of vanity (and impatience/efficiency), but hardly a serious problem. --Stephan Schulz 13:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're reaching Stephan. The point is not if it's factual (although with him editing it - and they are more than just trivial corrections if you follow the history back - this is in doubt), but if it qualifies as a Wikipedia page. Its a classic example of a complete trivia biog that should not be on here, as the user in question is not important enough to merit it. And yes, before you say it, I know we've had multiple votes for deletion, with negative outcomes, but when you look at who voted in those - well, that's where the role of an admin comes into play. So the real reason this page lasts is Connolley's role as an admin and not as someone important outside WP. So it shouldn't be on here, regardless of the veracity of it. I keep a pet dog - if I publish a page about me, a specialist in tree preservation who is totally un-notable outside the narrow world of Norfolk and Suffolk Tree Orders - what would you choose to comment on? Would you comment on accurate it is that my dog's name is Grainger. Or might you question if such a page should exist. Oh and by the way, I have had papers published in journals. But that doesn't make me automatically worthy of a page in Wikipedia. Neither does the fact that I "have beliefs". Hurrah! Neither does the fact that I "went to University". Goodness. MarkThomas 14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So you contest notability. William is reasonably well-known outside Wikipedia. Google Scholar returns a bunch of papers by him. He was interviewed by Nature (journal) about his work on Wikipedia, and he is a contributor to RealClimate. He may not be on a level with Queen Victoria, but he certainly is above Max (Pokémon). Looking at the VfDs, two preceeded William's adminship. And the fact that mostly admins are voting is fairly normal - check any other VfD. --Stephan Schulz 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

Adding {{fact}} is only appropriate when you have some reason to doubt the veracity of the statements. Care to share what these doubts are? Guettarda 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This too is easy to explain... [5] William M. Connolley 21:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the likely motiviation, but it would still be nice to have some sources. Do you have any online bio, e.g.? These seem to be good enough for most biographic articles....--Stephan Schulz 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with sourcing material (he could have raised the issue here), the issue is using {{fact}} tags - you shouldn't use them unless you have some reason to doubt the veracity of the information. You certainly shouldn't use them like this. In general, tagging articles is a last resort, not a starting point for discussion. Guettarda 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you are confusing {{fact}} with {{verify source}}. The former is for when there is no doubt (rendered as "citation needed"); the latter is for when there is doubt (rendered as "verification needed"). --Spiffy sperry 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. Guettarda 23:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You may follow the links to the templates above to see what I mean. It's all right there in the instructions (in bold, even)... --Spiffy sperry 13:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Technicalities aside, abusing these tags in the manner displayed by MarkThomas is vandalism and a vio of WP:POINT. •Jim62sch• 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I was just following the advice given above. Sheesh, it's hard to do anything right around here - at the moment I don't even have my own vanity page, as I'm not an admin. MarkThomas 08:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an work page http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ which would source some of these. But I'm not quite sure which bits we're talking about - some of the fact tags added by MT were obviously absurd - if you want to know if I'm part of RC, its easy to just go to... errr... RC and find this out. William M. Connolley 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Systematic harrassment by admins defending this page

Earlier on, I made an attempt to de-vanitise this page and also to remove uncited and unfactual material in line with a range of WP guidelines. Since then I have been repeatedly harassed by administrator allies of William Connolley. The harrassment has included (a) removal of my entries from their talk pages, against guidelines (2) random warnings on my talk page (c) personal threats and (d) vandalistic reverts of my postings. It is really quite stupifying the extent to which the administrator cabal is prepared to go to in defending the indefensible, eg, that admins are not subject to WP guidelines; for that is after all what we see here on the Connolley page. This page would have been deleted long ago if Connolley was not an admin.

If I am blocked now as an editor by Connolley's helpful pals, I am in regular contact with other like-minded editors and they will be contributing updates to this and other pages on progress. Basically until this page is deleted we see WP as essentially a corrupted entity. MarkThomas 21:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is off-topic here. You might want to take it to WP:ANI. However, (a) is within the discretion of the user, unless it's a justified warning, (2) the only one I found was a WP:NPA warning, in reply to a posting of yours that included the phrase "a bunch of utter halfwits", hence rather not "random", (c) can we have an example and (d) can we have more than one example? --Stephan Schulz 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:DR. MarkThomas 08:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is a blatant current admin abuse, WP:ANI is better. For a longer term conflict, yes, WP:DR is the way to go. --Stephan Schulz 09:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Making threats is really not in your best interest MarkThomas. This is advice, take it or leave it. •Jim62sch• 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What threat? This page is a pathetic abuse, and this type of page undermines both the credibility and usefulness of Wikipedia. The only sad thing is that as we all know Google emphasises it, so we have to pay attention to the results of what is in effect a role playing game managed by self-serving "wizards", eg, admins. MarkThomas 08:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"I am in regular contact with other like-minded editors and they will be contributing updates to this and other pages on progress" - that's a clear threat to disrupt this article in violation of WP policy. Guettarda 09:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? How do you make that out? Since when is "contributing updates" a threat????? Perhaps every update to Wikipedia is now a threat? Or is it just anyone with the temerity to update an admins vanity page? MarkThomas 09:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you threatened a coordinated campaign to disrupt an article. That can be a blockable offense. Guettarda 09:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it, I said "contribute updates", since when is that disruption? On the other hand, since we're exchanging semantic interpretations here, wouldn't it actually be in Wikipedia's best interests to edit out the bad parts of an article that clearly shouldn't be there, especially if people have joined in cabals to defend the existence of an obvious vanity puff page? MarkThomas 10:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New Wiki rule?

Jim62sch said :" ... now enough with the games -- finding any remaing "cites needed" is on the person placing the tag" Huh? The person who adds the info to the article is responsible for citing it. What are you talking about? You expect us to do the work of researching for what somebody else claims? Absurd notion. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

When you're abusing the tags, yeah, you try to find the facts -- if you feel that abusing policy is cool, then goose-gander-sauce. It took me all of three minutes to find the cites for the three you slapped on yesterday. Surely you could have done it. Ain't rocket science. Hell, if we carry your absurd notion of questioning points that needn't be questioned wiki would be nothing but fact tags. You have a problem with Connolley, take it up on his user page. •Jim62sch• 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can call it abuse if you choose; I call it asking for verification. I don't know that guy and without sources the whole article could be a pack of untruths. (You hear stories every day about people padding their resumes). When I add something to an article I cite sources and expect other editors to do the same. If you don't like that, well, tough on ya. I'm not going to go to the trouble of verifying other editors' claims.Duke53 | ^Talk 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet I did -- I didn't write the article in case you didn't notice. Besides, every article on wiki could be a "pack of untruths". Gonna start taggin' 'em all? •Jim62sch• 01:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your choice to verify others' claims. I will ask for cites on any article that interests me and where I feel that a source is called for. Duke53 | ^[[User

talk:Duke53|Talk]] 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of notability

I just don't see where this article asserts the notability of the subject matter. For example look at the (unsourced) activities section - does contributing to Wikipedia, maintain a homepage and contributing to user groups on the net consitutute a notable set of activities? --SandyDancer 15:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Simon Pulsifer is notable for contributing to Wikipedia, Canter & Siegel are notable for nothing but posting to Usenet, and Rob Malda for maintaining a home page. More to the point, William is a published scientist and one of the contributors to RealClimate, itself notable enough to have an article.--Stephan Schulz 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article about Malda, I see he has been written about in Time magazine, writes in a well-known magazine and actually founded a successful and well known website even I as a "non-computer" person have heard of (Slashdot). So that's a bad example. But in any case holding up examples of people who may themselves be "non-notable" but still have vanity articles here hardly cuts the mustard.

Your assertion that "William is a published scientist and one of the contributors to RealClimate, itself notable enough to have an article" doesn't really stand up to closer inspection either. There are tens of thousands of people that need to have articles created for them NOW if that is the case. --SandyDancer 17:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So your claim is that there are tens of thousands of scientists who operate websites that get over 1 million visitors a year. That seems unlikely. Dragons flight 17:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying there are tens of thousands of "published scientists" -see Stephan's comment above. Moreover, as far as I can see Connolley doesn't operate RealClimate, he just contributes to it - big difference. I note the other contributors to the site don't have Wikipedia pages... --SandyDancer 17:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He's one of the founding members of the group. He is also one of fewer than a dozen people able to write and post articles to RealClimate and moderate their forums. As of right now, about half of the people involved at William's level have Wikipedia articles. Dragons flight 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. But for all I (and the many others who have in the past raised concerns about this page in the past) know, they could be otherwise notable in ways Connolley is not. Perhaps you could provide their names so I can take a look? That would be helpful. Thanks --SandyDancer 18:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Like William, they are all scientists, and so RealClimate is not the only significant aspect of their identities for any of them, but here is the list of others with wiki pages: Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Raymond Pierrehumbert. Dragons flight 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

William passes WP:PROF (a Science paper puts you far above "average", when defining "professor" in the American way, which the guideline does). Add that to his involvement in RealClimate, his political involvement, and the fact that his activities at WP have been covered by Nature, and you have an aggregate level of notability which easily meets the standards of WP. Guettarda 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the concept of an aggregate level of notability - all sorts of talented and active individuals who wouldn't ordinarily be considered notable would be qualify for a Wikipedia page then. I know a person who has been on telly a couple of times, had a couple of articles published in periodicals and once in a national newspaper, won a competition once, been elected as a local councillor... he certainly isn't however someone I'd expect to see on Wikipedia. The fact Connolley is a local councillor doesn't add to his notability. Yes, its worth mentioning if we accept he is notable as a scientist, but it doesn't help him pass muster on the notability test, surely? --SandyDancer 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Aggregate notability is probably not the right idea (i.e. suggesting that one could become notable by piling on not very notable features), but there is something to be said for the whole being more than the sum of the parts. A fish is a common kind of creature, and walking on land is a common activity, but a fish that walks on land would be pretty remarkable. In the same sense, a scientist heavily involved in public outreach on a highly charged political issue is fairly unusual. Dragons flight 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my point wasn't really "aggregate notability" - it was that William's notability comes from his outreach work as a scientist. This is a relevant, but rare role for a scientist. Having made that impact, he is notable, regardless of his publication history (although, narrowly construed, he still is "above average" as in terms of WP:PROF - most professors have few publications, none in high-impact journals. Guettarda 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point SandyDancer, but then we're not talking on this page about objective notability, but administrator notability, that is to say, Wikipedia notability = a sort of new concept, notability by being notable on Wikipedia earns you enough notability to have a Wikipedia page. Thank goodness. See all the blather above; when the other admins get desparate to keep this page, they always end up citing Connolley's notability as a Wikipedian. I hope one day to be notable enough to have my own Wikipedia page, possibly as an administrative irritant. :-) MarkThomas 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Wikipedia notability" would be dangerous. I'm not convinced that he passes WP:PROF but it looks likely. Given that, it seems reasonable to keep the article (presumably if someone disagrees they should AfD it). JoshuaZ 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability wars

Whether notable or not, you should consider above where this article has been nominated three separate times before, failed each time, and generated a LOT of animosity each time it was nominated. What useful purpose would it be to nominate it again when you already know that a significant number of editors support the presence of this article here? Given the hard feelings expressed in those debates, I think you should weigh the possibility that attempting to delete this might harm the Wiki (and the nominator's individual reputation) far more than having this one item gone might benefit.

Is it really absolutely necessary that nobody ever stumbles across this page and learns a little bit about another human being? Is it really absolutely necessary to take away the possibility of finding this article from anyone who might actually actively search for Dr. Connolley, having read his name in some journal somewhere?

I suggest to everyone reading this to either edit the article to improve it, or simply move on; there are already over 1.4 million other articles here for you to choose from. You don't have to impose your personal will on every Wikipedia article you ever see to be happy. Unfocused 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to shut down discussion by using the expression "wars", and implying that was what I was starting, is frankly not on. Don't try and bully me, I will make my own decisions what to do. --SandyDancer 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing previous nominations for deletion is one of the things a responsible editor does prior to renominating for deletion. The previous nominations resulted extremely vitriolic fights and bad feelings all around, much of which took place on user talk pages and the mailing list, I don't recall for certain. However, it was very bad for the project.

That said, I never suggested you can't still nominate it if you like. I cannot "shut down" discussions. I'm sorry if you feel bullied by my suggestion of the course of action I think is best. Unfocused 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfocused, you seem to be very quick to attack or condemn even the remotest discussions of deletion. This isn't helpful. Please try and stay calm and civil. JoshuaZ 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Either I haven't expressed myself clearly, or you've misread. I am completely calm. My suggestion regarding this article is meant to be very helpful not just here, but in keeping a low level of wikistress in general. It is my belief that avoiding battles that need not be fought is always good advice.

I also think you may have a distorted image of me. I almost always decline to participate where a proposed deletion is proper and already clearly on the way to occurring. This is because I think there's no need to pile on negative opinions when the outcome is predetermined, because editors whose work is eliminated may contribute in other valuable ways if we don't deliberately offend them. Unfocused 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While I think that Unfocused was a bit premature in his characterisation of the discussion, I think that Sandy's reaction is a classic failure to assume good faith. I don't think here was any attack on U's part. He's right - there has been too much nastiness in the AFDs here. The article has survived 3 AFDs. If you have something new to add, something that hasn't been discussed before, by all means, raise the issue. If you don't, then you really have to ask yourself if it's worth re-opening old wounds. Guettarda 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how one can "assume good faith" when someone tries to characterise what was a perfectly civilised discussion as some kind of "war". Frankly, maybe you should be asking yourself why the 3 AFDs have resulted in so much bad feeling - perhaps its because users who wish to shield this page from legit discussion turn that discussion into a "war" immediately - just as Unfocussed tried to do here? Honestly, is risking hurting one admin's ego really worth undermining all the guidelines you have built up to guide this project? --SandyDancer 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no trouble with assuming good faith about Unfocused's contribution. "War" is your interpretation, not his text. On the other hand, your mind reading device seems to need calibration. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are not interested in a debate, but have already formed the opinon that the presence of this article "undermines all the guidelines we have built up to guide this project", and that everybody who disagrees is just doing so avoid "hurting one admin's ego" (not withstanding the fact that the article was created long before William became admin, and has survived its first two AfD's before he became an admin).--Stephan Schulz 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, please make sure that you have read the archived AFDs and the page history. Don't take a statement out of context and give it the worst possible slant. That's the point of "assume good faith" - rather than assuming his statement as an attack you should have considered other possibilities. I would have assumed that, prior to raising this issue you would have read through the archives of the deletion debates. I get the impression that you haven't. To interpret someone's words without giving thought to context is to fail to assume good faith. Guettarda 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. But then surely inserting a heading entitled "Notability wars" doesn't assume good faith either? --SandyDancer 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops...sorry to ascribe the word "war" to you. I scanned the text for it, but my brain missed the headline.--Stephan Schulz 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)