May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well.

My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows:

• S0/4*(1-alpha) = e*sigmaT^4
• S0/4*(1-alpha)+G = sigmaT^4

where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2.

In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour).

In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2.

My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way?

Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think all this talk of underwear and throbbing bodies is appropriate. Please keep such impulses to yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the Walrus and you talk about throbbing bodies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is for exploding underpants, but they banned them :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was Long Johns I was looking for but couldn't find the category until now. Anyway I prefer the leather ones. Seriously, can anyone answer my question above ? HistorianofScience (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for the one-sentence summary of the greenhouse effect, which is the earth is warmer with an atmosphere, because it receives heat from both the sun and the atmosphere. Your G, above, is the heat from the atmosphere. Put that way, it becomes obvious that G is not contstant, in time (long or short term) or space William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation but I'm still not sure I understand. Suppose we turned off the sun like an electric light. Then the earth no longer receives heat from the sun. Does it still receive heat from the atmosphere?

Until the atmosphere cools down, yes. Then no William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Isn't the correct explanation that the atmosphere is acting like a blanket around the earth, preventing it from cooling as fast as a black body would?

No. You need to read what I wrote and understand it. Until you do, you will get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not heating the earth, it's preventing it from cooling as fast as it would in the black body case.

No William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the heat energy it is losing should be identical, at the instant the sun turns off, to what it was receiving from the sun. If that is correct, G is the difference between the W/m^2 that the black body would emit, and the W/m^2 actually emitted. No? HistorianofScience (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a very very broad-brush approximation, the atmosphere receives no heat directly from the sun, since it is transparent to SW. The atmosphere is heated by LW from the earth (which itself, of course, is ultimately sourced from SW from the sun absorbed at the earth's sfc. Can you cope with maths? If you can, this is easily written down - indeed it is somewhere, I only need to point you at it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can cope with maths. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more like those rude transparent underpants then? [4] HistorianofScience (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium.

So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation:

S + G = rT^4

(the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere,

2G = rT^4

(the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis.

Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this [5] and the linked [6] also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (appreciated).

How do you get from S + G = rT^4 to 2G = rT^4 without the assumption that S=G (which you later derive). The intervening bracketed "the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). " seems like an explanation, but I didn't understand it.

The atmospheric layer absorbs all the surface LW, which is the rT^4. It is in equilibrium. It radiates , equally, upwards and downwards, G. So it gains rT^4 and loses 2G, so those two are equal William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the earth receives all the SW, then reflects it back to the layer, why do you say earlier that the layer heats the earth? Why isn't it the other way round.

No, it doesn't reflect the SW - it is assumed black. It absorbs all the SW and re-radiates it as LW. Yes, "the earth heats the atmosphere" can also be regarded as true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation which I am afraid I still don't really follow. I don't see how 'the earth heats the atmosphere' and 'the atmosphere heats the earth' can both be true.

• If it is true that none of the SW affects the atmosphere and that the earth reflects LW as a result, then the earth is the cause of the warming. Indeed couldn't we ignore the sun entirely, turn it off and install a large amount of patio heaters all round the earth pointing upwards at the sky: this would have the same effect.
• I didn't understand the both directions stuff "It [the atmosphere] radiates , equally, upwards and downwards". Maybe it does, but, unless there is a net outflow of LW heat energy from the earth to balance the SW coming in, the temperature of the earth will not be at equilibrium. A net flow can only be in one direction, by definition.
• The net outflow from the earth must be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere, otherwise the atmosphere would continue heat up. The atmosphere is hotter than the earth's surface because the outflow from the atmosphere has to occur at a higher temperature than the same outflow from the earth. So, the earth is the 'efficient cause' of the heating of the atmosphere, surely. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've dropped down into words (some of which are wrong: as I've said before, Earth doesn't reflect LW. It is black in LW). It is clearer if you use maths. Or pix, perhaps. Lets try:

                          |
                   G ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G.
                ----------------------------
                       
                     |    |
                     |    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
                   G V

                                      ^ S+G
                                      |
                -----------------------------
                Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4

Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, apart from the bit about not reflecting LW (that seemed picky, unless I misunderstood it), which of my claims was wrong? I said that the net outflow from earth to atmosphere has to be upwards. And that this outflow has to be exactly equal to the outflow from the atmosphere into space. Your diagram is incomprehensible. And what about Greenhouse effect where it says "Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface, making our life on earth possible." This is entirely wrong isn't it? It gives the impression that we are safe because only part of the radiation escapes to space, but the rest is trapped behind & keeps us snug and warm. The reality is that the net outflow from the earth has to be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere into space. Otherwise the atmosphere would keep on heating up until equilibrium was restored. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] The unclearness of the diagram is the omission of the causality. You have the atmosphere radiating G downwards, e.g. Yes but where does the G come from? If we were to start with turning on the sun like a switch, at that instant there would be no G from the atmosphere. In which case the first thing to hit the earth would be S. Then earth would emit (not reflect) S. With no G. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, you need the maths and the pix, not the words. The diagram is a steady state. We can re-draw it, if you like, for an Earth at 0K above which the sun has just been turned on:

                          |
                   0 ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
                ----------------------------
                       
                     |    |
                     |    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
                   0 V

                                      ^ 0
                                      |
                -----------------------------
                Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate.

So now in this pix you see that the atmos is still in equilibrium, at 0K, but the Earth isn't: It is absorbing S but radiating nothing. So it will warm up, yes? So after a bit we get something like this:

                          |
                   0 ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
                ----------------------------
                       
                     |    |
                     |    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
                   0 V

                                      ^ G_T
                                      |
                -----------------------------
                Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T.

So now the sfc has warmed up somewhat, so it is emitting G_T in the LW. Now the atmosphere isn't in balance: it is absorbing G_T but emitting nothing, since it is at 0K. So it will warm up. So it will start emitting downwards an warm further. And eventually we end up with the equilibrium solution William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision looks about as stupid as I'd expected, though not as stupid as some others expected. The failure of any meaningful remedies for admin involvement, which wrecked the CC probation, is a flaw. But to be fair, the PD is capable of becoming moderately sensible with the correct votes. The real test is who votes for that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_WMC, in case you missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FoF thoughts

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Final decision: thoughts

[14] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the limited amount of checkusers, it's fairly easy to check their block logs. No other checkuser has blocked any accounts as PG socks. (Unless they suppressed the block...) There was 1 rangeblock Special:Contributions/194.66.0.0/24. -Atmoz (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, maybe, but that wasn't the question, was it? I'm a bit baffled - what did I say that you interpreted as that being the answer to?

Also, that range is BAS. Possibly all of it. This stinks of paranoia William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... something, somewhere, I think? I guess it wasn't you. Oh well, my mistake. But if anyone does/did ask, there's the answer. Happy another orange bar. (Yes, blocking all of BAS was probably overkill. Most of the edits on that range were either a long time ago, or unrelated.) -Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats all right then. At least I know about the range block. It probably has edits by me in it - I guess I must be a PG sock too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is only the logical continuation of a failed policy - why waste time driving off expert editors one by one if you can block them wholesale? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, you're a good boy, remember? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anybody get the bulletin? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed it. Oops, looks like you were a bit too Sekret. Scarlet letter stuff I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is I suppose the kind of editors them want here. 80.186.105.107 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) formerly known as Dreg743[reply]

Twattery

After all the discussion, which you are well aware of, you continue to try and find ways to sneak around the edges of your topic ban. This will not be tolerated from you or any of the other banned editors. Banned means leave it alone, entirely. No exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see the result for User:Cla68 was to turn a blind eye. Interesting. By the way, whose sockpuppet is User:EngineerFromVega? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why now and not say 10 days ago for this? That's when the first comment was made in the section so again, why now? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not the admin, but the block came 15 minutes after the complaint at WP:AE. Right or wrong, the timeline is fairly clear.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] You're telling me that this block came 15 min. after the complaint? Since when is 15 minutes enough time to discuss whether an editor should be blocked, never mind just blocking said editor? Editors are located around the world in different time zones as you know so I don't understand the rush here. Was this considered an emergency to protect the project? I sure hope not. I was too late to make a comment at AE. The decision was already made to block, this is wrong. Maybe WMC deservers a block, that's not what I'm complaining about. What my problems is, is 15 minutes with a complaint then boom a 2 week block. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually the arbcomm case encouraged decisiveness, and one of the arbs said something to that effect in response to Tony's recent request. The alternative - agonise over it for two weeks and then still block - is probably not an improvement. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: No indication of what I have been blocked for. Nor indeed is "Banned means leave it alone, entirely. No exceptions" justified by the arbcomm result or policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Decline reason: This is an arbitration enforcement block. It can only be appealed as described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Oh, and can someone please point Beeblebrox at User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: You miss the point. This block was not imposed pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy. The arbcomm remedy does not include edits to my user talk page. Also, following recent intereactions with you, you cannot possibly be regarded as an impartial admin Decline reason: While I understand that's your opinion, this block should be reviewed using the AE process, so don't use {{unblock}}, but instead use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Well, thanks for the info. Wiki seems to have gone mad, or at least a portion of it has. At least a few remain sane William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you are finished writing out your appeal, I can move it to the AE page for you. However, I would suggest writing something a bit more substantive, perhaps a paragraph stating that you don't think it was violation of the ban, and that if the Request for Clarification rules that that sort of thing is not allowed, you will abide by it? I think that would give you a greater chance of a successful appeal. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, but I believe I've covered the sustance. Could you also get Beeblebrox to strike the "Mr" insult, unless he was doing it deliberately? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I will move it over now. As far as Beeblebrox, I doubt he intended it as an insult. Modern conventions indicate that males should generally be called Mr, and so I doubt he even considered it. I will ask him, though, if he will change it. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks (it shouldn't be necessary for you to do so. B ought to have read what I've written above). Also, there is a typo in my appeal: is the onehat -> 'is the one that. Could you correct that? Also, the template (presumably in an effort to rub salt into wounds) says that the appeal will be dismissed unless I notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then jump through some more hoops. Could you possibly jump throuygh the hoops for me? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have jumped through the appropriate hoops on your behalf, and I made a request on Beeblebrox's talkpage that he address you in your preferred manner. I'm going to review the evidence presented again, and then I will form an opinion regarding the appeal. At this point, i'm not sure what course of action I will suggest. If you wish to make any further statements for your appeals, make them here and I will transfer them over. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks William M. Connolley (talk)

Bizarre. I guess the appropriate thing to do now is to keep all conversations about climate change off wiki. Plausible deniability seems to be the arbitration committee's preferred mode of operation. Transparency is to be eschewed. This is oddly in-keeping with their primary mode of deliberation. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some unwanted advise

WMC, I removed a section from your talk page where you are posting related to Climate Change. Do not put it back or create another section if you want to retain talk page access. And consider this a formal warning that your block will be extended if you continue to post about CC on your talk page. FloNightUser talk:FloNight 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC) [Note - I've removed the irritating hearts from your sig - William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

So, you really are voting in favour of preferring off-wiki communication. Strange days William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not realise it but if it had been me posting any of those links I would have just been indefed and had talkpage access taken away instantly. The admins who dislike you are at least cautious enough not to stick their necks out too much. The result is likely to be the same in the end though as they go around purposefully not hearing good arguments that get in their way until they get what they desire. Polargeo 2 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, you're screwed no matter what you do. The Arbitration Committee acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings (not all members, I hasten to add, but that was the net effect). Since you aren't going to get a fair and impartial hearing regardless of what you do or don't do, I see no reason not to follow your conscience wherever that may lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather late in the day, the question appears to be one of diplomacy – an appearance of civility will overcome article content quality any day. Now that you're here, WMC, it would take uncharacteristic humility and an ability to let climate change articles go to hell in a handbasket without comment to have a hope of lifting the topic ban. Such are the wages of expertise and a commitment to good quality content, when assailed by political operators with a veneer of civility. As seems to be usual, I've no idea how to reach a satisfactory resolution of this situation. . . dave souza, talk 13:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Twattery redacted. Don't be such a delicate flower, daaaahling William M. Connolley (talk)] (that wasn't a reply to DS, that was to Bb, who seems to be a bit of a delicate flower. Not sure why his sig is gone from here, just noticed William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your denigration of other editors as "an army of followers who will support us no matter what and relentlessly attack anyone who is seen as opposition" says a lot. Anyone who disagrees with you is a Bad Person^TM and cannot possibly be acting from a principled difference in views, correct?

In short, your coming here to shove it in WMC's face and put down anyone who disagrees with you as WMC's "followers" and "armyis way out of line. You apologized to Awickert for your nasty "fan club" comments, but then you come here and make near-identical slams against WMC's "followers" and "army." That makes your apology ring hollow, as if the apology was merely a cynical act of convenience or dissimulation.

If you want to block me for saying this I don't mind. Take a free shot. It's obvious how much you enjoy that sort of thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Casting_aspersions on his part. I trust that he will be just as quick to block himself for violating the arbcomm ruling. Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox is being self-consistent. He told me, "I apologize if I incorrectly implied you were a member of said fan club." He never apologized for his assertation there is a set of people with nothing better to do than to bumble around the internet in said fan club. I was very tempted to respond to his original comment here, but I clicked the "X" on the edit window before I finished. Awickert (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I have struck portions of my comment accordingly, and apologize to Beeblebrox for having misrepresented his exchange with you. The remainder of my comment stands. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakage

Your conduct is being discussed at my talk page (though only peripherally). If there is anything you need to say in response please post it here and I may or may not meatpuppet it onto my page, depending on whether I do or don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekrit answer: can you tell SF that I saw someone comment of 8 significant edit wars to break out during the case, WMC was a primary participant in seven of them is twaddle (you may of course use rather more polite phrasing, or not, at your pleasure) and that commenting on such a case by merely repeating tittle-tattle is a poor way for an Arb to behave.

As for Coren, I don't think there is much hope of cradcking the veil of denial, but H's comment xhez NYB first, that you should immediately cease all back-room negotiations is interesting - perhaps you could ask C if any deals were done? Also, I'd be grateful if you could entirely ignore C's advice about whipping the incident into a froth your risk - that is all self-serving on C's part. They are embarrased by the stupidity of the situation they have created and are desperately hoping everyone will shut up.

As for RD, you should point out the anomaly of my being blocked while Cla gets off free William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Boris: as to EfV, I'd suggest a check against TS William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was, of course, discussion of the case on the mailing list — though nowhere to the extent that some people imagine — but they were not substantive points but points of process; things like coordination of who was to write new proposals, suggested rewordings, exhortations to vote and get the effing case done. But, unlike what some people imagine, the actual nature of the decision gets very little attention on the list: you'll see the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper. (Coren) This is the most alarming thing I've seen in all the vast verbiage I've seen devoted to the case. I, like most rational people I expect, assumed that long delays during the proposed decision process, and the lack of workshopping and transparency in the discussion of the proposed decision, meant that, for whatever reason, the committee had decided to conduct their deliberations on the case behind closed doors. If this (bolded statement) is true and there were no substantive discussions on the decision behind closed doors, if in fact the only deliberations were the few brief exchanges that were visible on the proposed decision page, then I don't know what to say. I wouldn't go so far as WMC has done in questioning the veracity of Coren's assertion, I'll only say that to believe that the statement is not true is less damaging to ArbCom's credibility than believing that it's true, because believing that it's true means accepting that there were actually no deliberations of substance, which is not acceptable. Woonpton (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the most troubling point remains Coren's statement that "the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper." Since discussion on the decision page was perfunctory this demands the conclusion that there was practically no deliberation amongst the arbs regarding the merits of the case.

In short, you can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that there was "considerable discussion among the drafting arbitrators" and on the other that the discussion was mainly limited to the perfunctory comments we saw on the decision page. You guys aren't very good at this; if you care about retaining the sliver of credibility you have left you'll need to agree on a common story and stick with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There being no consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn your block I have closed your AE appeal accordingly. Your appeal is denied and the terms of the block are in force. Should you not agree with this decision you may appeal the matter directly to Arbcom. --WGFinley (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your wisdom is broken, but I cannot fault your ability to count William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I forget [18] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I think all this drama is unnecessary. My three-part plan:

1. Stop editing here.
2. Check in now and again to see what is going to pot and what isn't.
3. After some length of time, publish an assessment somewhere.

Truth being, if most of the craziness in article space here ends up being a "flash in the pan" that is soon corrected without your help, then you might as well use your free time for fun and all is well (better, in fact: we've proven that you don't need to watch and defend the pages, and you can thank the arbs for your newfound free time). However, if lots of things have gone horribly wrong, then it will look like ArbComm's decision did not work out so well and WP is suffering quality-wise as a result.

I say this because (1) I don't think that anything that you would do will make arbcomm revoke your topic ban come 6 months, and (2) regardless of wording, CC is beyond all bounds at the moment (and per #1 will remain so indefinitely). So I can see no reason to do anything but sit and watch. Awickert (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else noticed Shell's untrue Arbiters don't make accusations, other parties (oftentimes involved in the same dispute) present evidence, suggest findings and so on? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse: [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Coren is as rubbish as ever: engaging in battleground behavior on their talk page is deliberate disinformation, or possibly a confession of ignorance; it is hard to know which is worse. As for the implied equivalence between me and MN: I reject it, of course (@SP: thanks for noticing this obvious point, even if it was too subtle for the arbs. Please continue your attempts to make RD see sense). Still, there is one saving grace of this nonsense: we'll find out whether Carc's offer was just a waste of time, or not William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well, yes. It was a waste of time. No surprises there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The high point of this silliness: [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't even know what I've been blocked for. Where is this incivility? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Your incivility has been adequately outlined at ANI, here.^{[dead link]} Once you learn to use civilised, polite language, you'll be one of the most productive users here. Unfortunately, however, your persistence in throwing foul language at other users creates discord within the community and discourages other users from editing, and as it's extremely likely you'll do it again if unblocked early, I see no reason to unblock you. Civility is more than a policy: it's one of the five pillars. If you're not interested in following the five pillars, I suggest finding a project other than Wikipedia. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Excuse me for busting in, but the link above is dead. So just where is the basis for this block documented? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it never was William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really haven't bothered look at this properly, have you? I was tidying up my talk page. I was not "throwing foul language at other users". And you have absolutely no reason to believe "it's extremely likely you'll do it again if unblocked early". Can you point to *any* incivilty from me off my own talk page, which is the only one you've left me access to? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Incivility redacted - WMC], whilst I appreciate you're upset and that this is a big step to take, but I've looked into this for the past few hours and I'm convinced that this is the best solution. I have pointed to you calling other users incompetent, calling other users twats, and I could now point to you calling other users idiots. Your doing this is not conducive to a pleasant atmosphere for editing; it drives other users away, which in turn disrupts the project. I don't often put my foot down, and I hardly ever comment on user conduct in a public forum such as this: but this is one of the few cases where I don't honestly believe you're willing to work with other people in a friendly atmosphere. You might be a good article writer, you're no doubt a perfectly amiable chap in real life: but Wikipedia is more than being a good article writer. Wikipedia is a community, and if you can't bring yourself to the same level of pleasant, polite discourse as other users - however wrong, stupid, twattish or incompetent they might be - then you need to consider whether Wikipedia is a community you're happy to be a part of. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your block review CML. It does seem very sensible to show that such an attitude towards basic policies is not helping the project.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've pointedly ignored my " Can you point to *any* incivilty from me off my own talk page"? (I should have said, recently, for some reasonable defn of recent - since the close of the Cl Ch case, say?) If you can't, then your comments become rather less plausible - reading this talk page is entirely optional for users and is not required for construction of the encyclopedia. Oh - and given the role you're taking here, I'd rather you didn't address me as William - it implies a degree of acquaintance that does not exist - you are English, aren't you? Please see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I call bullshit, CML. There's a double standard here, where editors can take free shots at WMC, myself, and others who agree with the scientific consensus but if we dare get out of line there's hell to pay. Where are the civility police when people post things like "Are most of you who are alarmists & cultists also gay? I'm looking to pack fudge." Or "If there was a god, you would go to hell, for being dishonest & immoral, but your days on Earth, in freedom which you oppress are numbered, until you go to jail or worse." Or "your input will be disregarded by me and any with two brain cells to rub together." Or when an admin, who should know better says "Who gives a fuck about Billy Tantrum's non scientific opinions anyway?" The list goes on and on and on and on. So spare us the sanctimonious lecture. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I question your impartiality to review this unblock. You had stated uneqivocally much earlier [21] that "A one week block is certainly appropriate" which means you'd already made up your mind. That makes you unfit to review the block William M. Connolley (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the myriad of questions here, you'll understand if my reply is a little lengthy. [PA redacted - WMC] (I hope this is an appropriate way of addressing you? I dislike the informal 'WMC', but I'll call you what you prefer), I can certainly point out where you've been incivil, but it's not on your talk page - it's in an edit summary, which is just as inappropriate. As to my impartiality, I'm as impartial a user as you'll find here, as before tonight I haven't been involved in Climate Change or with yourself despite us being on the project for nigh on five years together. Nevertheless, you are welcome to make another unblock request if you wish.

Boris, I think what you're bringing up is a different issue - or at least it's an issue not directly related to this unblock request - but at first glance I would have blocked in each of those cases as well. I know feelings run high on such contentious issues, but there's never an excuse for incivility from either side. If, in future, you find yourself being harassed by people not willing to work within the community's pillars, by all means contact me and I'll warn and block as appropriate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling your bluff, CML. Do you think this recent comment is appropriate for an admin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but I'd like to keep this on-topic, regarding WMC's block and WMC's block alone. Bring up an ANI or Wikiquette report about other user's conduct, point me in the right direction, and I'll give you my views there.. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, CML, that's nonsense. You have the diff right in front of you. You have three options to choose from: Block, speak to, no action. Just pick one. NW (Talk) 00:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're saying, but it'd hardly be appropriate - it'd look like Boris calling my bluff had forced me into warning or blocking LHVU, and the entire point of me warning him would be lost in the ensuing drama. The key point here is that everyone involved wants equal, fair treatment: so let's make it as equal and fair as possible. Let's bring this up at ANI, exactly where WMC's civility issue was brought up. There's naught more equal than equal treatment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your words were "If, in future, you find yourself being harassed by people not willing to work within the community's pillars, by all means contact me and I'll warn and block as appropriate." Not "report it to the appropriate noticeboard and maybe something will or won't happen." Your ability to lie with a straight face will serve you well on Arbcom; it's almost a prerequisite these days. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why haven't you brought it up on ANI for review? NW (Talk) 04:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you all get it yet? The WP:MMORPG just requires that you win. It doesn't require that you play fair. I learned that a long time ago. If CMLITC blocked the other offenders or even asked for another administrator to block other offenders, it would make the entire situation too discordant as the usual suspects would line-up explaining how we don't normally block for incivility, blah, blah, blah. That would make it glaringly obvious that this block was simply WP:PUNITIVE. No wins in that, are there? So best just not to do anything and let the interminable collection of walls of text drive us to oblivion. Meanwhile, this and this look ominous. jps (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CMTIAT: Please read the page I directed you to William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have made a harmless edit comment which worried no-one; real actual PA's on ANI such as [22] are being ignored; this is clear hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I unblock you, will you refrain from using naughty words? By all means, fire full broadsides at those who hound or attack you, but don't use gratuitously foul language. Use wit rather than profanity. M'kay? Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think asking for that promise on all occasions into the indefinite future is unreasonable, and far exceeds the demands put on other users, such as LHVU. So I am obliged to decline your kind offer, but thank you for making it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be perfect. Would you make a good faith effort to reduce such comments by an order of magnitude. What baleful things other editors do is not relevant to you. Do your best, and let the others look like the south end of a northbound horse. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely happy to make good faith efforts and in return I expect to be judged by the same standards as others William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, do you have any problems with B saying "fuck" [23]? Or, indeed, it is acceptable under the terms you propose to call other users "poisonous, nasty, condescending" [24]? Or is it only other users who are allowed to use these terms about me, whilst you expect me to be faultless in return? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "fuck" in that context is acceptable, because it's not uncivil or a personal attack. To refer to another specific editor as poisonous or nasty would be uncivil and a borderline personal attack, as would your use of the word "twat" in this edit summary. By calling editors names like that, you make it very difficult to want to unblock you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment revised - WMC] I'll go with endorsing Boris's comment, just below William M. Connolley (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your language isn't quite clear. "To refer to another specific editor as poisonous or nasty would be uncivil" or "is uncivil"? That's precisely what Beelblebrox did; note e.g., his use of the third person singular pronoun.[25] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used that wording for a reason. It is uncivil to refer to another editor in those terms, but had I said that, the next question is inevitably "what am I going to do about it". I'm not going to do anything about it because the comment was made almost a week ago and I believe Beeblebrox has since agreed or volunteered not to interact with WMC and finally because this conversation is about WMC's conduct, not Beeblebrox's. To address that, you should discuss it on his talk page or start an RfC/U. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...so that it can be disregarded following proper protocol. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical, but not inaccurate, sadly. Hopefully Beeblebrox will stick to his pledge to avoid WMC and the issue will be a moot point. WMC, will you just agree to make a reasonable effort to comment on content and not contributors or their motives (which would include making much less frequent use of the word "twat") and I'll unblock you. If you extend that courtesy to others and they fail to do so in kind, then by all means bring it to my attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm entirely happy to agree to that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a deal. I've unblocked you and your autoblock seems to have expired already so you should be fine as long as you stick to the above. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have equivocation. As I said, what others do is their own problem. Will you, WMC, promise to make an order of magnitude improvement in your communication? Keep it professional. Aspire not to type anything here you wouldn't say face to face to a complete stranger you'd never met before. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"what others do is their own problem": no. This is simple hypocrisy. You're involving yourself in someone else's problem. Blocking someone for incivility is intrinsically mixing up different people's problems. Insisting on an order of magnitude greater civility from me that from the people who attack me, whose attacks you ignore, is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that I must scrutinize the behavior of every single user on Wikipedia if I scrutinize one is silly. What you do is independent of what others do. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't a reasonable comment. You're being asked to compare my behaviour to that of two (and only two) people who have attacked me. I've been blocked for a week for an edit comment on my own talk; they have not even been given a warning for deliberate attacks in a public forum. If you think that is fair and reasonable then: you aren't. But in fact I know that you think it is neither fair nor reasonable, which is why you are struggling so hard to avoid making the comparison William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Pj understands

Dear William, I have some difficulties to delete contents from articles when it is not a pure nonsense or vandalism, and in all other cases I always ask the involved editor to explain his edit to solve the problem (if there is one) together ... can you imagine that I will cancel a post on my talk page? Not at all, don't mention it! You (as well as all other editors and readers) are and will always be more than welcome. I do not know if Jagged 85 is providing cooperation, but from what I read, it was his intention. If I will be asked to explain my latest ten edits, then I will have to go and see them all, one by one, because I do not remember them and what I did. Try yourself to figure out all your 60,000 edits (and Jagged 85's edits started in 2002 or so.) Yes, edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of contributions to Wikipedia, but it does not mean that it is discouraged. 60k edits mean 2 clicks per edit (1 for previewing the page and 1 for saving it.) Excluding automated tools such as a bot, it needs at least 1 minute, but if you also write something, then you need about 5 minutes for each edit... multiplied by 60k equals 300k minutes = 5k (5,000) hours spent and dedicated to Wikipedia. Isn't enough? For this reason I must extend my praise, thanks and rewards to you too. With regard to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, the more I read about that, the more I feel like throwing up. For example, read the question by HYpocrite on 22 April 2010: "You, of course, understand that your above explanation is totally unacceptable and if it continues you will be banned, correct?" Michael C. Price, rightly, replied: ""totally unacceptable" ? So the guy admits to human failings and is prepared to improve, and is told this is "totally unacceptable"." This reminds me so much of witch-hunting. If I had been treated in that disgraceful manner (so badly), then I would have packed up and without saying goodbye. Also, If someone has the intention to "destroy" or "damage" Wikipedia or whatever on the Internet, then it is better (this is sarcastic, of course) to do it by using a Dynamic IPs, IP spoofing, or Internet cafes, and certainly not an account on the English Wikipedia. Returning to the "problem" of the article about "Mathematics in medieval Islam", (because I do not know the situation of all other articles, but I imagine it's very similar) I have not found any examples of promotion of Islamism. Certainly the numbers we use today are Arabic numerals (or, more precisely, Indian/Hindu and Arabic numerals) as a result it is also certainly that there is a massive Arabic influence on the whole modern mathematics. In addition, the historical period and its context, the Middle Ages, is one of the most obscure periods in human history. In Europe, the "Holy Roman Church" (from Pope Innocent I [c.a. AD 400] on) held the absolute dominion over all books and publications and not only of those about the Christian religion, and most of them were destroyed and burned. It is a complicated subject and all the so-called "scholars" and we all know very little. In any case, the article in question was stubbed not due to the edits by Jagged 85, but, in a sense and a certain way, because of "my fault". While I was trying to check all the sources, someone thought that I was doing that to make it difficult for other editors to work and clean it up Jagged 85's edits. That's untrue but, for this reason, I feel responsible and involved in the incident. I regret that very much, and I feel so sorry for all the readers who were thus deprived of a B-Class (and not so bad) article. All the best (and happy editing, of course). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the dove is good. Now to nit-pick.

• You said, on your talk page, that Jagged he has provided and is providing its full cooperation [30]. I think, and I said, that isn't true. Now you say I do not know if Jagged 85 is providing cooperation, but from what I read, it was his intention. So I think you're backing off a bit. But really: this is an important issue: you ought to really take the time to find out. J certainly *promised* to help clean up: but he never fulfilled that promise. [Addenda: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85/Archive; Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cleaning_up the_problem and following William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)][reply]
• I'm not sure why you're talking about "destroy" and "damage". AFAIK no-one has asserted that was J's intention; I certainly haven't. People have said, over and over again, what the problem is: that he has persistently misrepresented sources and polluted a number of articles with inaccurate / biased / whatever information.
• This reminds me so much of witch-hunting - no-one is witch hunting. You need to look at the actual problems identified.
• Returning to ... Mathematics in medieval Islam ... I have not found any examples of promotion of Islamism. Certainly the numbers we use today are Arabic numerals - again, you're missing the point (no-one disputes the fact that our numerals are called arabic numerals; nor is it in dispute that they actually came from India). People have identified any number of problems with that article, for example [31]. Please take a moment to examine that edit; or the other problems identified, and work out whether you agree or not. If you don't understand the math involved, or the history of it, then it isn't clear to me how you are going to be able to judge.
• As to the stubbing: it was stubbed because it was badly broken. Your (incorrectly) declaring it clean was merely the proximate cause of it being stubbed, not the real cause. Aam refuses to admit there was any serious problem; please state clearly if, in your opinion: (a) the article was OK, with at most minor problems; (b) the article was badly broken; (c) you have no idea what state the article was in.

William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I declared it "clean" for the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive and it was before the "witch-hunting" (well, it appears to be more an "inquisition" than a "witch-hunt") started on that article (or about at the same time). After then I started to group sources but I was stopped by Ruud, who stubbed the article after a brief discussion (well, it was more a reprimand than a discussion, so much so that he did not understand what I was going to do for that article) and he did it without consensus. This is the "story".
2. Misrepresenting sources and adding biased informations to an article mean to me: to "destroy" and "damage" Wikipedia, because a vandalism such as the blanking of a page is easy to find and easy to solve, it needs just an undo;
3. you are judging me, as Ruud did before when he said that I've no access to the books in the Bibliography. Are you both sure about this?
4. You chose the wrong example. "In the 12th century, Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi found algebraic and numerical solutions to cubic equations and was the first to discover the derivative of cubic polynomials." is in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt at Google Books, and it took me just 0 seconds to found it out. Please DO NOT DELETE contents because of your POV. Please, use inline templates instead. [Long pointless list of template deleted - WMC]
   Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is the "story". - no, its not the story; it is just your inaccurate version of the story. But I don't think we'll agree on that, so moving on.

2. Then you're accusing Jagged of destruction and damage? That seems odd; still, I'll leave it with you.

3. Actually I was asking you a question: do you understand the maths involved, and the history of it. Your replies make it very clear that you don't.

4. Oh dear. No, I choose a very good example. al-Tusi did not discover derivatives, because he didn't even have the concepts. DW at Talk:Mathematics in medieval Islam#Al-Din al-Tusi_and derivatives of cubic polynomials has now given a very good examination of this; I suggest you read what he has written. It is a moderately good test case: are you (or Aam) prepared to admit to even the most obvious of errors, or are you going to continue to insist that this is all some vast "witch-hunt" or "inquisition"?

Before posting here again, please answer the question I asked you, with one of a, b or c William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> Well, she turned me into a newt :-/ An encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, and as such isn't necessarily up to the required standard of a reliable secondary source. Please assume good faith, and try to find good expert sources giving a properly balanced assessment of expert opinion on the topic.

Really looks like something for the article talk page rather than discussion here, no doubt WMC will advise of his preferences in that respect. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add: the source you are so proud of that you bolded it? It is trash. Had you read Talk:Mathematics in medieval Islam, you'd know that: as DW says there: The second source offered as supposedly supporting the disputed statement was Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt issued by an organisation going by the name of "MobileReference". However, this organisation appears to be in the business of aggregating Wikipedia articles and regurgitating them as e-books for downloading to mobile devices. If you compare the page cited with the last four paragraphs of the Algebra section of this version of Wikipedia's article, you will find that they're almost (or perhaps completely—but I haven't checked every single jot and tittle) word for word identical. The source is therefore clearly worthless as a citation to support statements made in Wikipedia. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting article unjustified

I am against redirecting an entire article just because it contains some junk by jagged 85

redirecting an entire article, goes against the idea of a Cleanup

in affect by redirecting, you are not really fixing the problem, but ignoring it

in fact it might constitute to stealthy aritcle deletion, without going through proper methods of deleting an article, you will see wikipedia files their "redirect policy" article, under the article deletion section

see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

if you wanna delete article, please take it to a vote --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you wanna delete article, please take it to a vote. First off, I didn't delete it, because I can't. I redirected it. But as to the substance: No. We've had quite enough voting and discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. But: you already *have* seen that page. You've seen the "vote" and you've seen that you've lost it, so it is rather dishonest of you to call for another one. Jagged produced far too much junk. If you feel like fixing it - please do. But don't restore his polluted articles. To the lurkers: we're talking about Medicine in medieval Islam William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding attempts to redirect Medicine in medieval Islam

WMC, the reasons you gave for attempting to redirect this article are not consistent with WP policy. The list of reasons for a redirect does not include the suppression of an article's content. Please note other people are working on this article, which means you are subverting the intention of redirect policy. See introductory statement at Redirects for discussion: Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold..

Please refrain from any further attempts to redirect articles for reasons such as you gave for this one.

Thanks -Aquib (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my jumping in. On the contrary, there is no policy requiring junk to be kept. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that Aam had learnt something from the rejection of his long sequence of complaints. But no, he has not, he is still defending Jagged's errors to the hilt. Sigh. Aam: errooneous material should be removed from wikipedia. That should be non-controversial. Alas, you believe that erroneous material that appears to boost the image of Muslims should be retained and encouraged. You are doubly wrong: what you are doing is against policy, and it is also harmful to your cause, since you end up with articles taht are completely untrustworthy William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out neither of these replies contain specifics regarding the article in question. And further, WMC's reply seeks to substitute remarks of a personal nature for a discussion of the actual issues. -Aquib (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. Specifically, regarding the article in question, he is still defending Jagged's errors to the hilt is entirely relevant to the problem in question. Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just for fun, lets remember this [32] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this [33] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding a lack of civility in your discourse

Hello,

Just today, in this instance and here as well, you have demonstrated a lack of civility. This is a violation of WP policy, it is one of our five pillars, and I strongly urge you to address issues rather than personalities. Make your case on the issues, please. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get to fill in one square on Wikipedia Bingo. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have to admit that's funny. -Aquib (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray. Aquib, in this case the issue is simple. You are wrong, you wikilawyer to defend bad content, and you don't help the discussion with spurious nuisance "warnings". Leave it alone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK the warnings are a bad idea. Fair enough. I'm not moving the discussion forward. I see your point. But are you saying I am acting in bad faith to defend bad content? That's what I seem to be reading. I would like to be sure I am reading this correctly. -Aquib (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to determine your "faith". You are certainly acting badly by defending bad content, and by your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude - no matter how often Jagged content is proved bad, you staunchly resist any attempts to remove it, and insist on starting all discussion from scratch. You aren't listening, and until yuo do, you won't learn anything, or provide any useful discussion. It seems to me - based on your username - that you are heavily influenced by a Muslim perspective - and based on your RFC and arbcomm statements you are seeing all this as part of a "war on Islam" by some editors, including me. That "war" doesn't exist; we care about the accuracy of wikipedia, and are very frustrated to see that you apparently have no care for accuracy William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this war very much exists, in particular in the more right-wing US media, and, by resonance, also online. However, the Jagged clean-up is not part of it. The fact that there are ill-considered and unqualified attacks in a topic area does not invalidate carefully considered comments. Crap is crap. We don't defend crap just because someone else is also crapping. The best course of action is to rewrite these articles to a high standard. But that requires reasonable study and competence of the topic, which is hard (I've been shirking a rewrite of caravel, which is in a sorry state, because the sources I have do not paint a nice and simple picture, and I don't know if I can get all the nooks and crannies right). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, to clarify: when I said That "war" doesn't exist I meant "within wikipedia" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending, for now

User:William M. Connolley/WQA Aam William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to see why you think this Jagged 85 discussion is irrelevant

Hi, I am curious as to why you think this dicussion of the Jagged 85 debacle is irrelevant. With your familiarity, you should see it is all topical. Indeed it is only missing one point. The one I tried to get you to respond to at Arbcom.

You knew about Jagged's work on these articles as early as 2007/2008. Why didn't you move to stop his excesses then, before the problem became insoluble?

Aquib (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm rejected your complaint. Now you're complaining that people who tried then didn't try hard enough. And now they *are* trying hard enough you're complaining about that too. Please stop all the useless waste-of-time complaining, and either get on with improving articles or find something else to do William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged Set Theory

Hi WMC,

In going through some of Jagged's edits I checked out this addition to Set Theory, Jagged's only addition to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=351886984

Thought I would ask you if you could take a quick look at the diff as you had mentioned a math background in the Mathematics in Medieval Islam discussion. The infinite dimensions statement seems dubious, but I don't know much about the field.

Dialectric (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took most of it out, leaving only the ref to Indian maths. As usual, it is hard to verify. I'd say it is too prominent for its content (why go on at such length, but only just mention Zeno?) and as usual makes too much of its claims of anticipation William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [34] -Aquib (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Did arbcomm teach you nothing? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you reverted my change claiming that all viewpoints (even fringe ideas) must be presented, while here you deleted a cited claim that I verified allegedly because Katz holds other views.

Do you really want to present all viewpoints or only the ones that fit yours ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a basic reading comprehension problem. I'm not advocating fringe views. More simply, I reject your assertion that there is no controversy over the relative roles of transmission and origination. Your cited claim is wrong' or rather, it is overblown, like so much of the Jaggedese. Hopefully you aren't aiming at becoming a second Jagged William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn al-Nafis and now this. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn al-Nafis? You mean your erroneous claim that there were many sources? Please don't dig up your past errors William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your message"Hi. You are adding text that is getting removed. If you want to discuss this........." So please tell me the reason u have ommited the lines below Did you really find the lines below irrelevant?

The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states.

That the Quran mentioned such a fact centuries before the invention of the first telescope, at a time when there was primitive knowledge in science, is considered remarkable. This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself. Could it be that he had truly received divine revelation from the Creator and Originator of the universe?[35]

Those lines are a WP:COPYVIO, from the source you indicate. If you wanted to include them, they should be in quotes. However, rather worse, they are just one rather partisan interpretation. You are aware that (a) the verse has other translations and (b) even that translation is ambiguous. Given that you are aware that another perfectly valid translation is "We are the makers of things ample" I do not understand how you can add the text you have William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All material may be copied printed and distributed by referring to this site." [36] Criticisms of consistency

is a partisan interpretation as Science and the Bible doesnt have Criticisms of consistency.

in reply to "We are the makers of things ample" I do not understand how you can add the text you have" my external link had another translation so it not the same translation. "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.[37]" [[User tauhidaerospace - 19 May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site specifically states "All rights reserved". I very much doubt that cmoplies with wikipedia's license terms. You will need to check this up carefully if you wish to insert their text; I don't think you should.

As to the actual meaning: the point you are missing is that the original arabic verse clearly has multiple possible interpretations in English. I don't speak Arabic, I have no idea what the original says. But to assert, as you have done, that there is only one possible interpretation and this interpretation demonstrates foreknowledge of expansion is clearly not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with this edit summary [38]? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, certainly not, in that it refers to the entire edit. I am fairly happy with the "expansion of the universe" bit, in the sense that I don't regard it as misleading (but even there, there are problems of course: it is basically OR. But in that it illuminates the way the source can be read differently, I think it is actually useful). The "black holes" stuff is complete junk, though William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the claim of endorsement? At least he is now posting to my talk page asking if his edit is ok. But it should be the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on, another editor has replaced it claiming consensus on talk page. Since I'd warned the other editor for 3RR.... Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again, and replied on the talk page. T is a newbie, and obviously somewhat enthusiastic; N isn't, and should know better. I don't take kindly to having my name abused by them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in an WP:Edit war at Avicennism while I agree with you that consensus has been reached on the talk page and feel I addressed AAM's concerns on the talk page an uninvolved party should decide which version should stay until someone can work on it.J8079s (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. Nothing will address AAMs concerns, because his only concern is to retain text, totally regardless of quality William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am really trying to help al-A I think you an AAM may be blocking the light thank you J8079s (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that on Al-A's page (and I've no idea what I've done to deserve your section title). Yes, I think it would be very helpful if AAM would back off. I doubt he'll listen to me, though William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the whole business with this, seems I was lucky. From what I gather from Tkuvho accusations being hurled toward me, he was abusing references? Anyways I thought you could take a look at Differential (infinitesimal) in its history section, Jagged 85 added some stuff that looks questionable to me and I thought you might know for sure at a glance. Thenub314 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jagged85 stuff rumbles on; there is no need for you to miss it all (though I'd run screaming if I were you). I'll look at D(i) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, instantly recognisable. I could dig out the long tedious discussion we had over that, if you really want to see it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BATTLEGROUND says wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes, which include those originating from other websites.

search Gun powder ma on chinahistoryforum

search Tibet Libre on chinahistoryforum

search gun powder ma on allempires forum

Gun Powder Ma at allempires forum talking about the Moveable type article- "Forget Wiki. If you feel comfortable, I am going to edit the whole article for you. Then you can quote again from Wiki."

I found dozens of threads, in which GPM dragged over disputes from those forums into wikipedia articles. repeatedly editing wikipedia articles, and then going back to the forum to boast about him being right. This violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, not only that, GPM accused BlueonGray of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND based on off wiki arguments

User_talk:BlueonGray#WP:BattlegroundDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is, why are you so vociferously anti-GPM? This has all the hallmarks of some bitter dispute you've fought over before - but for some reason you're reluctant to reveal it. Care to come clean? Or, how about the reverse: do you assert that you have no previous history with him? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, why you are trying to detract the conversation from the fact that GPM outed another user's location in a malicious manner. Even though this is an extreme exageration of my role, since I did not commit an infraction, if a vandal A reports another vandal B at ANI, the report is still valid, the fact that vandal A is a vandal, does not stop vandal B from getting penalized. You seem intent on deflecting the charges by insinuating that I am motivated by revenge.

Why don't you say whether you condone GPM's behaviour or not? Why don't you tell me whether you think GPM's dragging of disputes from off wiki forums onto wikipedia was appropiate?

Accusing me of being anti GPM can be a personal attack, and the opposite can be true for you. why try to defend GPM posting the location of another user? If you did not defend him, and then questioned my motive, you would have a point. But you defended him first, which means you are not a neutral party.

Is your question about a previous dispute rhetorical? You know full well that GPM also canvassed you, presumably to support his call for a block against me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=441705396 which he later withdrew, since everyone agreed that I did not attack GPM. even though you were not involved at all in the dispute] I see no evidence that you commented on Aua's talk page, but he canvassed you.

GPM has also been displaying questionable behavior at Talk:Plough#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough- he backed down after another user proved he was manipulating sources.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten that; it was while I was on hols, so I paid little attention. But I doubt that was the original in this dispute; your year-old diffs show fairly clearly that you've been nursing a grudge for some time. Are you really asserting that was your first dispute with GPM? I think you have a bias here that you aren't admitting William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered any of the other points I've made, you haven't said you condemened GPM's battleground behaviour on the forums, and you haven't answered about your pro GPM bias. most importantly, you failed to answer why GPM canvassed you when you were not involved in the dispute with me, which indicates something else is going on between you and him. I feel no need to answer rhetorical questions conducted in an interrogative manner with edit summaries like "not plausible" and "won't do". Goodbye.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to condemn GPM for off-wiki behaviour, and you asking me to is highly improper. Your refusal to reveal your real dispute with GPM is very bad faith as well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Roman_metallurgy/Archive_1#Dubious_iron_production_figures, -"Forget Wiki. If you feel comfortable, I am going to edit the whole article for you. Then you can quote again from Wiki."

"off wiki behaviour" which affects wikipedia, is of deep concern to those who wish to keep this encyclopedia intact. Its in very bad faith that GPM dragged persopnal disptue from there into wikipedia.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to flounce out dramatically, you should stick to it. As to your last: you're a bit too in-universe. It isn't at all clear to me what you think those links so dramatically demonstrate. Off-wiki behaviour means very little in-wiki, in general, unless it shows clear and compelling evidence of wrong-doing. Your links certainly don't.

But as I said before: the missing piece of this puzzle is why you are so violently anti-GPM. Are you ashamed of it? Why won't you say? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentric bias, trying to manipulate the plough article and other articles that I will list if you want to see them, which was how the dispute here started, since I noted to User:Aua that he was not a sinophile. And I'm having diarrhea so I might not be able to answer for several minutes. WP:BATTLEGROUND states that personal fights etc. are not allowed to play on on wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma dragged his dispute with intranetusa onto wikipedia, while intranetusa and GPM might both have been blocked for it, only GPM was uncivil while Intranetusa was not.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also puzzling is again, why GPM canvassed you to his block request against me, when you had nothing to do with the incident.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this current incident arose out of a serious violation, WP:OUTTING which you do not seem to comprehend is totally unacceptable, regardless of what the person who was outted did. We don't out vandals, trolls, or any kind of editor. If you out a vandal or a troll, you still face penalties. You can't read my mind, you don't know what I'm thinking, why are you trying to squeeze a confession out of me that this is because of a vendetta? This violates good faith and is a personal attack. Previous encounters like the one you were canvassed for does not affect the validity of the complaint I filed, and if I deny it has anything to do with the previous dispute, that ends it. Again, if a vandal spots another vandal committing vandalism and reports it, the other vandal still gets penalties. And again, that was an exagerration since I did not commit infractionsDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is over as far as you asking me why I am "violently" anti GPM.- He canvassed you against me already, and you know about the incident- I deny that this report has anything to do with previous encounters- I did not say previous encounters did not take place. You're trying to nail me into a spot and then try to descredit my ANI comments. I filed this report since I found GPM's attitude towar User:BlueonGray to be unsettling and threatening, and BoG is a new user, not that familiar with wikipedia rules. I also agree with BoG on his AfD. I have left alone other users like User:Teeninvestor who engaged in disputes with GPM, and did not defend them, since Teeninvestor was not a new user, neither did I agree with some of his edits on ethnic minorities.

If I was "violently" against GPM, I would have butted into the dispute between GPM and Gnip here- Talk:Plough#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough and into this dispute GPM had over here on ANI recently. Can you explain my absence from those disputes if I was that antagonistic toward GPM?

And this conversation is really over, since you haven't answered any of my concerns.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deny that this report has anything to do with previous encounters - no, that isn't plausible; nor have you answered my points. So we can agree on one thing - this conversation should end William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with [40] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And, later: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off_Wiki_Forums William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]