Revision as of 22:54, 18 April 2008

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

The Holding Pen

Is empty!

Current

anti-Americanism

We can use a little guidance and help. If you can please drop by. Igor Berger (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

Can you delete Allegations of state terrorism by the United States so we can move the Beast back to its home..:) Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Errm, its a redirect, is it doing any harm? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Supergreenred

I've tried talking to him, but he won't listen. He keeps deleting any messages I leave on the talk page to try to present a different POV or just get him to calm down. Hopefully any admin who reviews his unblock request won't be fooled by his removal of them. John Smith's (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And putting a note of it here won't do any harm :-). I was close to protecting his talk page to restore your messages, but thats probably unnecessary. The obvious corollary re the talk pages is that 24h is not going to cool him off William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Protests to your recent deletions at the U.S. and State Terrorism page

There have been legitimate protests to your mass deletions at the U.S. and state terrorism page. I suggest that you read these objections carefully and not skim over them. Personally, I consider your actions disappointing with regards to both your admin status and the[REDACTED] project as a whole.BernardL (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, so admins aren't allowed an opinion? William has simply been bold, much like other users have claimed. John Smith's (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the protests, and I think they mostly miss the point. The article is too long, and there is large amounts of material that can be moved (or already is in) sub-pages. People are getting upset because they think this is somehow degrading the importance of this article, or downplaying the role of Yankee Imperialism. This is wrong. So, I urge you to try to edit to actually improve the article, rather than "protest" reversions which really don't help William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I've seen longer articles on movie stars and TV shows. I am not saying the article shoud be mammoth in propotion, but maybe some editors have valid consers. We should have like 5 examples in different countries at the top of full text, and 5 at the buttom of summaries with links. The part that describes what is terrorism can be a small summary with a link to the sub article. Get read of some of the links at the buttom. Make the article astetically presentable. Change the title back to what it was! Igor Berger (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Im here to notify you of an ANI thread I started to review your conduct, which I think is a blatant case of the worst admin abuse I've ever seen. As one of your victims, I don't want any one else to suffer like I did. I will stand up to any attempt to bully editors to affect content of the article.Supergreenred (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've been informed, good. I want to hear what you say about this. I approve of cleaning absurd amounts of unrelated material from such articles, but it shouldn't be done by editing through protection without prior discussion of the sort that happened before the Liancourt Rocks soln was implemented. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is not about editing through protection, but about removing material. If you want to help the article, please do: go to the talk page. There is excess stuff on an over-long article that should be in sub-pages, and in several places duplicates material that already is William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel's BAMS piece

WMC, I'm wondering what you think about updating Effects of global warming to reflect K. Emanuel's conclusion in his recent article that there is some uncertainty in attributing increases in tropical cyclone intensity to global warming. I know we both reverted the Scibaby sock's entries involving it, which should have been reverted regardless of poster for weight and sourcing issues (the Chronicle's article blows it way out of proportion). However, since the BAMS article was an update to Emanuel's previous work, which is cited in the Effects article, it probably merits inclusion, but I'm not sure how I would word it concisely. It doesn't say that GW has no effect on intensity, just that its effect still has some uncertainty tied to it. Jason Patton (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My usual position (which is very hard to keep to) is that its best to let the science settle for a little while before it goes into wiki. Ideally a bare minimum would be 6 months to give others a chance to comment. Thats probably hopeless though. In the meantime, a brief 1-ish sentence mention would be my preference William M. Connolley (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb

Started a thread on AN/I to review your block: . I could possibly have the rule wrong, however I asked other admins to review you blocking some one you were in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing an article you protected

This series of edits () seems to be seriously problematical. Could I have your take on it, please? Black Kite 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I *think* that you're trouble making. If you have some other purpose, do please explain more William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I would be asking the same question - why you made edits which appear to be skewed to one point of view, on an article you protected, while it was protected - to any admin who had done so. I don't think it's such an unfair question. Black Kite 08:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I will assume good faith, despite appearances. I do not agree with that your claim that the edits were skewed as remotely fair and the talk summarised them as removing material which ought to go on a talk page. Anyway this was discussed at where three other admins broadly supported the edits as aggressive but reasonable versus no dissenting admin views. --BozMo talk 09:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Given , I'm not sure how to AGF. You'd already decided I was POV-pushing. But to answer: you diff is misleading. It conflates two separate episodes. The editing-while-blocked is a red herring and, as Bozmo has already pointed out, has been dealt with. Moreover, during that period, there were no complaints . As to your accusations of POV-pushing: I deny them. I have very little interest in the content of the article. I got drawn in - I forget how - to try to fix the edit war there. I still have very little interest in the content, but I do want wiki to have a good article on the subject. The article has major problems: most obviously, (a) its vastly bloated with material that belongs, and often is, in sub-articles; and (b) its a laundry-list, rather than a credible analysis. If you're interested in improving the article, do please join in. You've also failed to acknowledge that I de-protected what is supposed to be my favoured version .

Woah. Note that I was very careful not to accuse you of "POV-pushing", rather that the edits appeared to be skewed towards one point of view, and there was the quote from User:DHeyward ("Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right...") which suggested you were involved somehow, though it's difficult to tell how given that mess of a talk page. To be honest, I was merely trying to get a straight answer - I've no axe to grind here, as I'm uninvolved in the article as well (I think I might've voted on the one of the many AfDs once, but...). Incidentally, I think the RfC is a bad idea. Black Kite 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I was similarly "WTF?" on the second of those diffs you posted on my talkpage, as well. No idea what's going on there. Black Kite 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Black Kite, it does very much look to me as if stating WMC was being POV was exactly what you did?--BozMo talk 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My turn to apologise, then - that particular edit was poorly worded, and I have refactored it. Black Kite 21:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hopefully we're back to AGF all round. In that case, my para Given... above applies, and now my second diff on your page should make sense. You've conflated two different episodes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I filed an RfC regarding your use of admin tools on the page in question. Your comments are welcome. Just to note I hope you read it and understand it is not an RfC regarding your behavior in general as I am sure you are a great editor and good admin outside of what has been shown in relation to this article. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've overplayed a weak hand William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning: You are abusing your administrative priveleges

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent block is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used , which has been one of the reasons other admins have been dysopped.

Tango, another admin, recently blocked a user, and he is currently in an Arbcom. It should be noted that Tango was not involved in the dispute, and that he had justification for the block, whereas you were deeply involved in the dispute and you had no justification for the block.

Further:

1. I was the person who requested the page being protected to stop the senseless deletions which you have been involved in.
2. I was not in violation of 3RR.
3. You hypocritically blocked me but not any other user in the dispute.

I am not some newbie who can be pushed off of[REDACTED] with acronyms and threats, ask Mongo.

Inclusionist (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)