1290:
succeeded at it. TravB unfortunately (for him) didn't; the other side did revert before protection was applied, and he was blocked (as he should have been, and as I should have been but wasn't for that long-ago incident). Perhaps Devil should have been blocked also, but TravB's actions show willful calculation to get the article locked in his favored version. -
1707:. G33 mistakenly believed that I was on 1RR restriction (he left a pretty 1RR warning on my page before asking WMC what the 1RR meant - it was a community 1RR restriction on a paragraph in an article that applied to everyone). WMC then went to look at what the hubub was about and discovered the absolute worst article in Knowledge. Ironically, G33
164:. This in itself is against the rules as I have understood them, an admin is not to protect an article and then edit it, unless the content being removed is requested and agreed upon on the talk page, or the content is a violation of the BLP policy, and finally unless the admin is taking an action requested by WP:OFFICE.
1794:
the article to prevent edit warring. However, after placing the block, the admin then proceded to edit the locked article without gaining group consensus (removing content that did not violate copyright or BLP issues), unblocked the article per the expiry of the edit war lock, then blocked an editor
1770:
admins have no special privileges and that includes not having a special privilege to use blocks and protects to control the direction of edits. Many a time I've thought "if only I could protect this page and edit in peace the article would be perfect", but I cannot because I'm not an admin. An admin
1510:
It's clear that Travb is a timewaster. His block should be expanded to indefinite before he drags everyone into pointless RfC's and ArbCom's. His contributions to either establishing consensus or improving any article is essentially nil. His timewasting is notorious, perpetual and longwinded. The
1424:
He blocked two users because of their behaviour - they were edit-warring with other people. Supergreen was identified as a sockpuppet and his behaviour was very disruptive. Trav was also disruptive and the block was confirmed by another admin. It might have been better for Will to ask someone else to
121:
The community ban is two fold, first to protect the editors who oppose
Williams side from any further lashing out, or further penalties associated with editing against Williams point of view. This would also protect William as it seems he has taken this article as too personal as I do not know of him
63:
user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:35, 18 April
1401:
Ah, right. Well I think that the extreme edit-warring on the article in question means that
William probably did the right thing. It was a suggestion, and the protection was lifted not that long after. I think the policy is designed to stop admins using protection to establish edits for long periods
1210:
The above speaks for itself. I had a good look at several of these when they came through AN/I and I cannot see anything which WMC did which was inappropriate or went against policy (although there are things I personally would have shied away from). However I can see a lot of pointless time wasting
1141:
Oh, yeah, and
William did exactly what was needed to help the project. The fact that several tenditious edit(ors/warriors) are attacking him should be worn with pride. Someone go write an article instead of bothering with this 'ZOMG admin abuse!' crap. There was no content dispute, and even if there
482:
William fixed a problem. There was abuse of the project by a small number of agenda-driven individuals, evidence of sockpuppetry and other problems. William stepped in, fixed the problem with some admin actions that seem OK to me, and then went about his business. This complaint is frivolouos and
1583:
This isn't about Travb or DHeyward, you two argue everywhere. For DHeyward to be here insisting that Travb using socks months ago is permission to discount any and all concerns for the future is absurd, especially when they are abuse of admin tools that no one has disagreed with as against blocking
1685:
If
Ultramarine or Dheyward were asked to list the names of people who oppose their views in general on the article, do you think your edits would be in line with DHeywards and Ultramarine, or Travb and Giovanni33? If possible can you please also answer why you felt Dance With The Devils 3RR on the
450:
I have cut swathes from this page because its grossly bloated. This is an important issue and deserves more attention. All too often articles accrete stuff because its verifiable and marginally related. Its hard to get rid of because people will always scream about their pet bit being removed. The
117:
What I hope will come to pass is
William will admit his actions were wrong, and hopefully apologize to Travb and the community for abusing his admin tools in this manner. I would further like the article put back to the state it previously was, so the people who edited the article before can do so
1555:
Okay, he's a prolific timewaster. This RfC is a case in point. He's made 17 edits within the span of an hour to this RfC, most of them highly exaggerated accounts rehashing past events. It wastes everybody's time having to respond to both the overwhelmingly tediousness of such edits and their
125:
I want to make something clear. I do not think
William should lose his admin tools, though I have been informed that 4 instances of abuse of them warrants removal, I simply want the peace on this article to be formed by consensus and not fear off reprisal. I am sure William is a great editor, and
1618:
I'm on the fence about a few things. I find
William's decision to edit the page under protection lacking in transparency. Could someone please link to when and how William was requested to edit the page, and precisely what discussion took place? If such a request had been made with sufficient
1289:
TravB's technique of marching in, reverting three times, then running off to request page protection in the hopes that it will be applied before the other side reverts again is quite clever. I actually had done this myself on another article a long time ago when I was a less mature editor, and
182:
The size of the article dropped from 150K to 83K. The definitions were removed again, after another user readded them as not having been removed with consensus, removed a section where one author specifically defines an incident as "state terrorism", which is a prerequisite as laid out by some
1765:
I haven't read the article in question but, given the title, I can see that it must be a hotbed of edit warring so I won't even bother looking at it. From a 'just the facts' perspective it appears that an admin has protected a page primarily to edit it and has used blocks against users of one
1817:
Correct - if looked at in isolation. However the lack of a statement that 'oops - I should not have edited an article where I am playing traffic cop' and the sizable history of similar incidents that TravB/Inclusionist has posted suggest this may not simply be a short term lapse of judgment.
1323:
This RfC is not about the article itself, its about the abuse of administrator tools, which happened 3-4 times in the process, judging by the recently added information, it seems this happens more often then I anticipated. The policy specifically says an admin should not make changes without
418:
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response"
1623:'s assessment that William came in to fix a problem and did what he was asked to do. If, on the other hand, William decided to take sides in a content dispute without a wider community mandate, then he clearly abused his administrative tools during this affair, and I must agree with
977:
844:
785:
701:
683:
540:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside
1302:
Good point, Merzbow. William made some changes to try to get the article moving in the right direction, but of course some people would object. And as for consensus, few if any of the editors on that page edited with consensus - so to now get annoyed because
William made some
1037:
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are
1538:, an editor with over 23,000 edits to his name, has made 148 edits to the article and 856 edits to the talk page of the article, spanning several years. He/she is not "clearly a time waster" as DHeyward suggests, and an indefinite block is unthinkable. Shame on you.
1277:
This article has been a trainwreck for years, an unreadable mass of text that kept growing longer and longer with everything anyone could throw at it, and attempts to trim it down were typically met with name-calling and puppetry. As with other notorious messes like
142:
William has blocked two users he was in a content dispute with over a single article and has twice used admin tools, once to protect the article, which he then began editing it while it was protected, and the second time to remove an outside admins protection.
1451:
No, I think he blocked who he believed the source of the trouble was. Blocks are, so I keep hearing, preventative not punitive. It's worth noting that Trav was re-blocked by another admin and that the other admin didn't take any action against other users.
155:" article, this article was under a previous title prior to that State terrorism and the United States. The page is often a hotbed of activity, adding and removing of content, so an admins protection was not unusual. William protected the page
1645:
This is a fair question, but one that I can't answer, as I've forgotten. G33 was unwise enought to complain to me about DH at one point; I may have come in via that. You seem to assume that I've taken sides in a content dispute; I haven't
1946:
451:
invariable pattern is that when material is cut to sub-pages where it belongs, those people who were so protective of that information no longer care. It wasn't the info they cared about, but their contribution to a high-profile page.
406:) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) While I voiced my concern (on the talk page and repeated on the ANI) I have not 'taken any other action' to resolve my concerns regarding this matter. The above summary appears to reflect the situation.
1286:, sometimes it takes one or more admins to take harsh actions, for a period of time, to stabilize such articles. It's not like WMC had been editing this article for six months and just recently decided to use his admin powers.
877:
1307:
changes is rather hypocritical. In the past various editors have ignored consensus because they've said that only "established" editors have the right to create consensus, so they can ignore relatively new arrivals.
1686:
page did not warrant a block, however Travb's did. I ask because while you may not have the intention of supporting a particular side, your edits, and your views may just happen to reflect one particular side. --
942:
for trolling for this comment "One thing is clear: this
Knowledge article and its fanatical guardians are a perfect example of how and why Knowledge cannot be considered as a reliable source of knowledge." on
1474:
If he blocked the other faction of the revert war the trouble would have disappeared as well so in which sense you say that Travb could be considered "the source of the trouble" while the other faction could
1255:
How about having edited in a manner that over 3 users have disagreed with you and started considerable debate over the validity of the arguments? Would 10 edits that were reverted signify a content dispute?
1949:. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
293:- States a page should not be edited except for a situation where there is a clear consensus. The reverts that followed Williams edits should have signaled there was clearly no consensus for the edits.
37:. I'm keeping it as a pet. You're welcome to add comment, if you're well behaved. But be aware that this RFC is essentially closed. Customers who have been interested in this product have also perused
328:
335:] - An administrator asking for clarification on the editing situation presented above, Williams reply "I *think* that you're trouble making. If you have some other purpose, do please explain more"
167:
I have heard some arguments that I would like to address, the first is that the edits were not controversial, which removing all of the definitions of terrorism and state terrorism appear to be:
109:
The issue at hand is misuse of admin tools by protecting an article and editing it afterwards in a PoV manner, and blocking users the admin was in a content dispute twice, over the same article.
183:
editors. You can examine the dif and see half of the article has vanished in between the 5 edits. These edits were obviously reverted as there was never a consensus to remove half the article:
1057:
is a problem, in that only the people involved understand the issues, have followed what is going on, and can issue blocks in a timely manner. Yes I have some obvious examples in mind, and
23:
322:
179:
To show this was not drive by editing, I would like note
William continued to edit the article right after. In the following 5 sequential edits William removed over 50% of the article:
1413:
He also blocked 2 users he was in a content dispute with, which is against the blocking policy for admins. This is all listed above, so I am not sure how you could have missed it. --
601:"Will...you can't block users you're in disputes with. The policy is unambigious and ArbCom has indicated the same thing. This is the kind of thing that people get de-sysopped for."
316:
310:
202:. Supergreenred was eventually blocked for being a sockpuppet, however William blocking a user he was in a content dispute with over this article again repeated itself with Travb.
1283:
691:
34:
1374:: "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." —
1142:
was, the editors should still have been blocked. Blocking them improves the encyclopedia, and if the rules stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia, then the rules
599:
William blocks Chris. Administrator Chaser later states "you're correct that WMC shouldn't have blocked an editor he was in a dispute with" On William's page Chaser says:
1666:
1061:
is the most recent one. There should be some way for admins to block people they are involved in disputes with. There also need to be some safeguards on it, I suppose.
1743: != for the good of the encyclopedia. Full protecting and then making non-urgent edits at your leisure is bound to bring the project into disrepute, is it not?
1006:
1886:
I see that an ArbCom case has been initiated against William, so the evidence above will probably be considered by ArbCom. I do believe that William acted against
1090:
1070:
Regarding Ultramarine's statement that Coren is an uninvolved admin, Coren is not an uninvolved editor he and I went back and forth on the September 11 Arbcom.
1402:
of time. It wouldn't have made a difference if William had lifted the protection and then made the edit rather than doing it the other way around in this case.
1819:
1796:
1669:
744:
427:
I'm not very interested in the article in question. I never edited it before being asked to help. I am interested in wiki having a good article on the subject.
399:
443:
And - gasp - I unprotected the page when it was on my "favoured" version. Obviously grossly promoting my own POV by, err, allowing other people to change it.
862:
752:
1911:
1868:
1860:
1712:
1535:
1531:
1058:
995:
973:
152:
545:{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
939:
928:
906:
1766:
particular pov without opening up a discussion with the broader community. It is possible, even likely, that the admin's motives were pure but under
1600:
1191:
1120:
1042:
This policy is clear and unambiguous. That is why William and his supporters have ignored this policy violation, which is the center of the dispute.
1009:, in which Alexandergungnahov accuses William of vandalizing his page by adding a Welcome sign, William boots Alexandergungnahov for 8 hours for NPA.
962:
951:
917:
873:
584:
371:
194:
248:
246:
244:
234:
231:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
184:
180:
162:
159:
156:
764:
William blocks DHeyward, length: 8 hours, reason: "violation of 1RR on GW; incivil edit summaries" There appears to be no 1RR because of arbcom.
122:
abusing tools in any other location, or related to anything other then this article, which is why all desired outcomes point only to this article.
118:
again before William came in and removed half the content. Finally I would like William to be issued a community ban against editing this article.
851:
789:
38:
1907:
1864:
1853:
1726:
So what WMC is recalling had nothing to do with the state terrorism article in question? So I guess it still leaves the question unanswered. --
1013:
820:
809:
620:
174:
171:
168:
1771:
should not use the tools to manage content in a way that an ordinary user cannot, and any admin doing so should, at the least, be censured. --
1596:
1527:
1463:
The other users actions were not known at the time of the block. I pointed this out to you on another page, perhaps you did not read it. --
1116:
367:
1829:
Is an RfC the right place for this? If there is the accusation of a pattern of this type of behavior then shouldn't there be something on
161:
In the course of 6 edits he removed 15k worth of text. Two days later William unprotected the article bringing it down to semi-protection
1569:
52:
84:
1534:) has a substantial history of editing the article in question, extending over a period of several years. According to Wannabe Kate,
748:
1062:
1556:
volume. He uses this tedious style as well as contentious and disruptive edits and reverts to thwart consensus and policy such as
1030:
602:
563:
1863:. However blocking editors he is an edit war with sounds like a serious problem. Is that indeed supported by the evidence above?
1899:
835:
336:
55:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
487:" by people whose POV failed to prevail in the article, for reasons pretty much entirely unrelated to anything William did.
999:
331:- People requesting clarification of the blocking and editing on AN/I. No response, possibly due to William being offline.
290:
126:
great admin, or he would not have been around so long, and been given the privileges to be an admin in the first place. --
200:
1744:
569:
988:
966:
888:
91:
571:
all found that William abused his administrative powers by blocking editors he was in an edit war with, violating
304:(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
275:- Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. The only exception is BLP.
197:
225:
199:. Eventually an admin unblocked Supergreenred since it was clear William was in violation of the blocking policy
1833:? (Or, how does one involve the broader community to comment on the appropriateness of the admin's behavior?)--
1651:
460:
77:
45:
1790:
to edit it " (emph added) is entirely accurate. It is my interpretation of events at the time that the admin
921:
33:
This was deleted as an invalidly certified RFC; there was a brief discussion before the last deletion here:
483:
fails to establish any meaningful pattern of abuse; in fact, I'd say it was a garden-variety complaint of "
284:
213:, both long term editors of the article. Travb also attempted to revert the article to its previous state:
176:
Once William was done with his chosen edits he then lowered the protection so others can edit the article.
1138:
I've got the Sharks going to the stanley cup, winning in five games. Anybody want to lay ten bucks on it?
396:) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) User of interest has a long history of blocking those with whom he edit wars.
1367:
325:- More discussion on the vast removals and on the blocking of Travb who he was in a content dispute with.
780:
614:
866:
739:
566:
193:
This leads to another issue. William then, against administrator blocking rules, blocked Supergreenred
1823:
1800:
1673:
1647:
1457:
1430:
1407:
1348:
1313:
800:
592:
476:
456:
403:
240:
224:. William however blocks Travb over the reverts, again a violation of administrators blocking policy
73:
41:
17:
1279:
596:
228:
1016:
William blocks User:24.59.148.187, for the comment "making up B.S. excuses to", reason: incivility
1731:
1691:
1589:
1468:
1418:
1329:
1261:
1227:
1067:
William M. Connolley blocked me but not any other users who supported his edits in the dispute.
278:
255:
131:
329:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_.28William_M._Connolley_of_Travb.29
1748:
1634:
1545:
899:
1711:
on a 1RR restriction from ArbCom and was blocked shortly thereafter. Even more ironically is
1668:. You would appear to have become involved in content issues now, even if you weren't before.
1222:
Are you stating that blocking two users you are in a content dispute is not against policy? --
1838:
1811:
1776:
1199:
1076:
727:
517:
1453:
1426:
1403:
1344:
1309:
1104:
772:
607:
472:
455:
If you care to strike out the ludicrous accusations, I'll reply to some of those remaining
361:
1906:, but this is a minor issue. I had too little interaction with William to judge about that
1086:
1078:
1046:
1022:
580:
572:
555:
272:
8:
1480:
1445:
731:
723:
1891:
1786:
I don't believe that the interpretation "it appears that an admin has protected a page
1727:
1720:
1687:
1624:
1585:
1577:
1516:
1464:
1414:
1379:
1325:
1257:
1223:
1175:
847:, an article William actively edits. Reason: "Inserting false information: incivility"
735:
672:
668:
507:
251:
187:
127:
1903:
1628:
1539:
1295:
799:
and William are arguing in, William blocks Lordvolton for 8 hours for "incivility".
690:
William blocks Britcom for 8 hours, reason: Restoring incivil comment for this edit:
616:, William blocks Lapsed for the reason "repeated re-insertion of unsourced material"
1834:
1807:
1772:
1759:
1371:
1195:
1055:
may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator...
702:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
684:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
650:
642:
527:
513:
1425:
step in, but it's not as if Will reverted them three times and then blocked them.
978:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
845:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
786:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
1241:
1215:
1100:
895:
796:
779:
William blocks Lapsed for 3 hours giving the reason as "incivility" for this edit
635:
484:
423:
It would be impolite not to respond. But there is too much to respond to it all.
357:
323:
Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States#Protected.2Funprotected
1895:
1887:
1880:
1704:
1565:
1476:
1441:
1304:
955:
944:
932:
910:
761:
716:
705:
687:
661:
631:
624:
393:
205:
After numerous editors had reverted much of Williams article edits in protest:
553:
1945:
signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to
1830:
1767:
1716:
1573:
1512:
1375:
1188:
1171:
1143:
827:
816:
805:
792:
for incivility for this comment "A great read for all you cool aid drinkers."
757:
712:
503:
495:
489:
221:, in Travb's third revert he makes it clear he has asked for page protection
1664:"You seem to assume that I've taken sides in a content dispute; I haven't "
1930:
1922:
1557:
1291:
1147:
831:
776:
765:
697:
679:
646:
611:
1194:. An independent administrator reviewed and reblocked Travb/Inclusionist.
1020:
998:
for "repeated posting of own content to sci opp on cl ch" for comments on
719:
William personally blocks Wikzilla twice for Three-revert rule violations.
317:
Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States#WMC.27s_deletions
311:
Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States#Massive_deletions
1595:
I Write Stuff is right. I removed my comments. This is a RfC on William.
1561:
1160:
1132:
984:
855:
523:
158:
which is normally not an issue, but he then proceeded to remove content:
1237:
Content dispute means something more than have edited the same pages. --
751:
William blocks anon for three hours for this statment: "Buzz off hippy"
338:
as if the question was not merited, or did not simply deserve an answer.
299:
196:
for reverting him, and what he calls disruption, the full discussion is
1238:
1212:
657:
440:
Blocking supergreenred, an abusive sockpuppet, was obviously sensible.
266:{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
1876:
1440:
block the faction of the edit war which was against his POV, right?--
884:
840:
389:
64:
2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:
627:
William blocks Jaymes2 for the reason, "repeated insertion of tripe"
1620:
1029:
William M. Connolley's recent block of me was another violation of
243:
who reverted Travb 3 times, was not blocked for disruptive editing.
1806:
That would then be a lesser evil (without malice aforethought)! --
100:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
649:, which William actively edited before and after, William blocks
1073:
Ultramarine and Connolley have worked in tandem on the article.
173:
Then chopping another section on what Low Intensity Conflict is
209:
who is a frequent editor made a 1RR protest revert, as well as
1085:
At least 7 other admins have been desysopped partly for fewer
664:
William blocks Wedjj for 8 hours, reason: "disruptive editing"
344:
313:- People voicing opinions of the deletions not being consensus
233:, and William takes it upon himself to remove the protection
170:
He then proceeded to remove an entire section in the article
1343:
Can you please quote policy on that specific point? Thanks,
39:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration#User:William M. Connolley
1568:. You also forgot to add the sockpuppet and anon's he used
281:- Notes that tools should not be used in content disputes.
1715:
uses my block as an example of WMC's misuse of tools. --
1619:
community exposure, then I may be inclined to agree with
738:
for William abusing his administrative powers once again.
1031:
Knowledge:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used
466:
1511:
block was appropriate and we should simply move on. --
1187:
Just pointing out that the issue has been discussed on
1115:
Note this endorsement was based on an earlier version.
708:
William blocks Britcom for 24 hours reason: Incivility
638:
William blocks Sterculius for "Tendentious edtis at GW"
380:
151:
On April 9, 2008, William M Connolley appeared on the "
1859:
I do not see any reasons why William should not edit
300:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
261:
24:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2
1005:
Because of an argument on his user page with newbie
878:
List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
287:- Instances in which an admin can protect then edit.
1861:
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
1059:
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
350:{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
153:
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
1153:
548:
146:
1014:Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png
821:Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png
819:for incivility because of comments on the page
810:Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png
808:for incivility because of comments on the page
227:, which can also be seen in Williams block log
1130:
788:which William actively edits, William blocks
693:in which Brit says: "Don't be a hypocrite WC"
430:You're not going to get your desired outcome.
1146:. Always have, always will, it's one of our
1077:Other admins have been desysopped for fewer
1045:William M. Connolley admitted that he broke
291:Knowledge:Protection_policy#Content_disputes
230:. The page was protected per Travb's request
1570:Knowledge:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Travb
345:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
104:
53:Knowledge:Requests for comment/User conduct
1851:
1703:WMC had blocked me for a 1RR violation on
1613:
1757:
1182:
749:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
562:Three independent administrators: Chaser,
285:Knowledge:Admin#Exceptional_circumstances
1053:Time to start a major flamewar I think.
1890:policy and improperly deleted edits by
319:- More discussion on the vast removals.
14:
1505:
834:for a comment on William's talk page.
641:In an edit war with the actual person
433:Some of the accusations are ludicrous.
1920:
1795:who restored content to the article.
1436:So you think that this admin did not
1272:
1002:, an article William actively edits.
991:, an article William actively edits.
980:, an article William actively edits.
969:, an article William edits regularly.
958:, an article William edits regularly.
947:, an article William edits regularly.
935:, an article William edits regularly.
924:, an article William edits regularly.
913:, an article William edits regularly.
902:, an article William edits regularly.
891:, an article William edits regularly.
880:, an article William edits regularly.
869:, an article William edits regularly.
858:, an article William edits regularly.
734:twice. William is chastized by admin
467:Other users who endorse this summary:
239:Something I noticed only afterwards,
1000:Scientific opinion on climate change
653:for 3 hours, reason: "COI violation"
381:Other users who endorse this summary
1324:consensus while it is protected. --
1205:
35:Knowledge:AN#William_M._Connolley_2
30:
1012:On a page that he actively edits,
262:Applicable policies and guidelines
112:
31:
1958:
1211:including in my view this RfC. --
987:for "incivility" for comments on
976:for "incivility" for comments on
889:The Great Global Warming Swindle
1096:Users who endorse this summary:
989:The Great Global Warming Swindle
967:The Great Global Warming Swindle
579:Here are William's violation of
534:
279:Knowledge:Admin#Misuse_of_tools
1928:How about a nice warm cup...?
1284:List of events named massacres
1154:Users who endorse this summary
137:
74:William M. Connolley
66:13:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
13:
1:
1937:
1883:) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1871:) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1826:) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1814:) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1803:) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1779:) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1723:) 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1654:) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1641:) 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1592:) 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1580:) 06:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1552:) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1519:) 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1460:) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1448:) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1433:) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1421:) 13:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1410:) 12:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1298:) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1202:) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
922:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
583:. All blocks can be found on
549:Comment by Travb/Inclusionist
463:) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
258:) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
147:Evidence of disputed behavior
134:) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
51:In order to remain listed at
1914:) 02:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1841:) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1751:) 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1734:) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1694:) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1676:) 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1603:) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1483:) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1471:) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1382:) 12:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1366:I suspect he's referring to
1351:) 12:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1332:) 11:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1316:) 09:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1264:) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1230:) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1178:) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1123:) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1107:) 00:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
965:for posting youtube link on
530:) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
520:) 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
510:) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
479:) 16:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
374:) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
364:) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
48:) 22:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
7:
1947:this page's discussion page
1934:13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1741:for the good of the article
1368:Knowledge:Protection policy
1218:06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
867:Global warming controversy
412:
10:
1963:
1244:15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1168:06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
823:, which he actively edits.
812:, which he actively edits.
696:In the same edit war with
500:21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
593:User:Chris_Chittleborough
186:The user in question was
18:User:William M. Connolley
1280:Views of Lyndon LaRouche
1087:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
1079:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
1047:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
1023:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
675:(see more details above)
597:Hockey stick controversy
581:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
573:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
556:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
273:Knowledge:BLOCK#Disputes
105:Statement of the dispute
1614:Comment by silly rabbit
1572:to his edit totals. --
1021:William's violation of
1007:User:Alexandergungnahov
554:William's violation of
1183:Comment by Ultramarine
900:Historical climatology
1370:, or more precisely,
1148:five founding pillars
1091:User:Inclusionist/Bad
815:William again blocks
795:In an AfD which both
728:Climate change denial
1875:Incontrovertibly. ~
1648:William M. Connolley
773:User:Lapsed Pacifist
771:In an edit war with
768:reverted this block.
745:user:207.237.232.228
743:In an edit war with
722:In an edit war with
711:In an edit war with
678:In an edit war with
667:In an edit war with
656:In an edit war with
619:In an edit war with
608:User:Lapsed Pacifist
606:In an edit war with
591:In an edit war with
585:William's block page
457:William M. Connolley
241:Dance With The Devil
42:William M. Connolley
1506:Comment by DHeyward
732:User:ConfuciusOrnis
724:User:ConfuciusOrnis
1892:User:HommieDaKlown
1625:User:I Write Stuff
1273:Comment by Merzbow
920:for incivility on
909:for incivility on
863:User:71.211.241.40
736:User:FeloniousMonk
673:User:Supergreenred
669:User:Supergreenred
630:In an edit war on
188:user:Supergreenred
1904:Soviet propaganda
1792:primarily blocked
1713:User:Inclusionist
1536:User:Inclusionist
1532:User:Inclusionist
1166:
1124:
996:User:219.64.26.28
974:User:DonaldDuck07
499:
485:rouge admin abuse
22:(Redirected from
1954:
1639:
1638:
1631:
1550:
1549:
1542:
1454:John Smith's
1427:John Smith's
1404:John Smith's
1345:John Smith's
1310:John Smith's
1206:Comment by BozMo
1165:
1163:
1131:Outside view by
1114:
940:User:69.19.14.29
929:User:Kismatraval
907:User:69.19.14.31
898:for comments on
887:for comments on
865:for comments on
854:for comments on
843:for comments on
839:William blocks
784:For comments on
651:User:PiersCorbyn
643:User:PiersCorbyn
493:
473:John Smith's
67:
27:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1940:
1926:
1857:
1820:TheRedPenOfDoom
1797:TheRedPenOfDoom
1763:
1670:TheRedPenOfDoom
1636:
1635:
1629:
1616:
1547:
1546:
1540:
1508:
1275:
1208:
1185:
1161:
1156:
1136:
1083:
1027:
994:William blocks
983:William blocks
972:William blocks
963:User:Dick Wayne
961:William blocks
952:User:Grimerking
950:William blocks
938:William blocks
927:William blocks
918:User:Likwidshoe
916:William blocks
905:William blocks
896:User:Peterlewis
894:William blocks
883:William blocks
874:User:Juanfermin
872:William blocks
861:William blocks
850:William blocks
826:William blocks
804:William blocks
797:User:Lordvolton
730:William blocks
717:Global warming
671:William blocks
645:in the article
636:User:Sterculius
600:
578:
565:FeloniousMonk,
560:
551:
537:
469:
415:
400:TheRedPenOfDoom
383:
347:
302:
264:
149:
140:
115:
113:Desired outcome
107:
97:
70:
65:
59:dispute with a
49:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1960:
1939:
1936:
1925:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1896:Nuclear winter
1856:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1762:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1705:Global Warming
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1530:(now known as
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1472:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1318:
1317:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1232:
1231:
1207:
1204:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1169:
1155:
1152:
1135:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1109:
1108:
1082:
1075:
1065:
1064:
1040:
1039:
1026:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1010:
1003:
992:
981:
970:
959:
956:Global warming
948:
945:Global warming
936:
933:Global warming
931:for "spam" on
925:
914:
911:Global warming
903:
892:
881:
870:
859:
848:
837:
824:
813:
802:
793:
782:
769:
762:Global Warming
754:
741:
720:
709:
706:Global Warming
694:
688:Global Warming
676:
665:
662:Global Warming
654:
639:
632:Global Warming
628:
625:Global warming
617:
604:
559:
552:
550:
547:
536:
533:
532:
531:
521:
511:
501:
480:
468:
465:
453:
452:
447:
446:
445:
444:
441:
435:
434:
431:
428:
414:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
397:
382:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
365:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
332:
326:
320:
314:
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
288:
282:
276:
263:
260:
148:
145:
139:
136:
114:
111:
106:
103:
96:
95:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1959:
1950:
1948:
1944:
1935:
1933:
1932:
1924:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1855:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1827:
1825:
1821:
1816:
1815:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1778:
1774:
1769:
1761:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1729:
1728:I Write Stuff
1725:
1724:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1693:
1689:
1688:I Write Stuff
1684:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1640:
1632:
1626:
1622:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1591:
1587:
1586:I Write Stuff
1582:
1581:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1551:
1543:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1518:
1514:
1482:
1478:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1465:I Write Stuff
1462:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1423:
1422:
1420:
1416:
1415:I Write Stuff
1412:
1411:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1327:
1326:I Write Stuff
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1287:
1285:
1281:
1263:
1259:
1258:I Write Stuff
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1224:I Write Stuff
1221:
1220:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1203:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1139:
1134:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1088:
1080:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1048:
1043:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1024:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
986:
982:
979:
975:
971:
968:
964:
960:
957:
953:
949:
946:
941:
937:
934:
930:
926:
923:
919:
915:
912:
908:
904:
901:
897:
893:
890:
886:
882:
879:
875:
871:
868:
864:
860:
857:
853:
852:User:Dean1970
849:
846:
842:
838:
836:
833:
829:
828:User:Isonomia
825:
822:
818:
817:User:HalfDome
814:
811:
807:
806:User:HalfDome
803:
801:
798:
794:
791:
790:65.12.145.148
787:
783:
781:
778:
774:
770:
767:
763:
759:
758:User:DHeyward
755:
753:
750:
746:
742:
740:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
718:
714:
713:User:Wikzilla
710:
707:
703:
699:
695:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
674:
670:
666:
663:
659:
655:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
633:
629:
626:
622:
618:
615:
613:
612:Shell to Sea
609:
605:
603:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
586:
582:
576:
574:
570:
567:
564:
557:
546:
543:
542:
529:
525:
522:
519:
515:
512:
509:
505:
502:
497:
492:
491:
486:
481:
478:
474:
471:
470:
464:
462:
458:
449:
448:
442:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
429:
426:
425:
424:
421:
420:
405:
401:
398:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
384:
373:
369:
366:
363:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
337:
334:
333:
330:
327:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
259:
257:
253:
252:I Write Stuff
249:
247:
245:
242:
237:
235:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
219:second revert
216:
212:
208:
203:
201:
198:
195:
191:
189:
185:
181:
177:
175:
172:
169:
165:
163:
160:
157:
154:
144:
135:
133:
129:
128:I Write Stuff
123:
119:
110:
102:
101:
93:
90:
86:
83:
79:
75:
72:
71:
69:
62:
58:
54:
47:
43:
40:
36:
25:
19:
1942:
1941:
1929:
1927:
1858:
1854:User:Biophys
1791:
1787:
1783:
1764:
1745:86.44.30.169
1740:
1708:
1663:
1630:silly rabbit
1617:
1597:Inclusionist
1541:silly rabbit
1523:
1509:
1437:
1376:the Sidhekin
1288:
1276:
1209:
1186:
1159:
1140:
1137:
1117:Inclusionist
1095:
1084:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1054:
1044:
1041:
1028:
832:User:Haseler
777:Shell to Sea
775:on the page
766:User:Viridae
698:User:Britcom
680:User:Britcom
647:Piers Corbyn
621:User:Jaymes2
610:on the page
577:
561:
544:
539:
538:
535:Outside view
488:
454:
422:
417:
416:
368:Inclusionist
349:
348:
303:
265:
238:
215:first revert
207:RedPenofDoom
204:
192:
178:
166:
150:
141:
124:
120:
116:
108:
99:
98:
88:
81:
60:
56:
50:
1921:Comment by
1902:in article
1894:in article
1852:Comment by
1835:RegentsPark
1808:RegentsPark
1773:RegentsPark
1768:No big deal
1760:RegentsPark
1758:Comment by
1438:selectively
1196:Ultramarine
1133:User:AKMask
1089:abuse, see
985:User:Rotten
954:for 3rr on
876:for 3rr on
856:Carl Wunsch
568:and Viridae
558:with others
514:Ultramarine
138:Description
1938:Discussion
1898:and later
1528:User:Travb
1101:Giovanni33
658:User:Wedjj
358:Giovanni33
1788:primarily
1739:William,
1584:rules. --
1477:Pokipsy76
1442:Pokipsy76
1372:WP:PREFER
1038:involved.
885:User:UBeR
841:User:Jepp
1717:DHeyward
1574:DHeyward
1513:DHeyward
1172:Jtrainor
504:Jtrainor
419:section.
413:Response
211:BernardL
85:contribs
1931:Sceptre
1923:Sceptre
1908:Biophys
1900:my edit
1888:WP:NPOV
1865:Biophys
1784:comment
1566:WP:NPOV
1524:Comment
1305:WP:BOLD
1292:Merzbow
1025:with me
76: (
1831:WP:ANI
1475:not?--
1189:WP:ANI
524:Vsmith
87:
80:
61:single
1558:WP:RS
1239:BozMo
1213:BozMo
1081:abuse
756:With
634:with
541:view.
496:Help!
16:<
1912:talk
1881:talk
1877:UBeR
1869:talk
1839:talk
1824:talk
1812:talk
1801:talk
1777:talk
1749:talk
1732:talk
1721:talk
1692:talk
1674:talk
1652:talk
1637:talk
1601:talk
1590:talk
1578:talk
1564:and
1562:WP:V
1560:and
1548:talk
1517:talk
1481:talk
1469:talk
1458:talk
1446:talk
1431:talk
1419:talk
1408:talk
1380:talk
1349:talk
1330:talk
1314:talk
1296:talk
1282:and
1262:talk
1242:talk
1228:talk
1216:talk
1200:talk
1192:here
1176:talk
1144:lose
1121:talk
1105:talk
704:and
686:and
528:talk
518:talk
508:talk
477:talk
461:talk
404:talk
394:talk
390:UBeR
372:talk
362:talk
256:talk
132:talk
92:logs
78:talk
57:same
46:talk
1943:All
1621:Guy
1526:.
1093:.
760:on
747:on
726:at
715:at
700:on
682:on
660:on
623:on
595:on
490:Guy
190:.
1709:is
1627:.
1256:--
1150:.
1049::
1033::
587:.
575:.
388:~
250:--
236:.
217:,
68:.
1910:(
1879:(
1867:(
1837:(
1822:(
1810:(
1799:(
1775:(
1747:(
1730:(
1719:(
1690:(
1672:(
1650:(
1633:(
1599:(
1588:(
1576:(
1544:(
1515:(
1479:(
1467:(
1456:(
1444:(
1429:(
1417:(
1406:(
1378:(
1347:(
1328:(
1312:(
1294:(
1260:(
1226:(
1198:(
1174:(
1162:M
1119:(
1103:(
830:/
526:(
516:(
506:(
498:)
494:(
475:(
459:(
402:(
392:(
370:(
360:(
254:(
130:(
94:)
89:·
82:·
44:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.