Connolley will someday be taken before ArbCom (again) for his behavior. Not only is he a churlish bully, he's a POV-pusher.

I find it odd how questioning someone about their opinion in an area that is consensus based on a community that is consensus based is now "hectoring". If you have an opinion, expect it to be questioned, challenged, or the like. If you don't like it, then don't post it. WMC has a lot of real problems, but this is not one of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya know what else? Connolley's blog reminds me of Filll's blogs. Crusty, opinionated, worthless.

Connolley will someday be taken before ArbCom (again) for his behavior. Not only is he a churlish bully, he's a POV-pusher.

He's certainly not a good example for other administrators to follow. I'd be interested to see how he'd fare in a reconfirmation RfA.

Regarding the "reconfirmation RfA", is there such a process currently, or was it just something you'd like to see? I was thinking about something like this morning actually as I encountered a rather churlish admin with the communication skills of a piece of lawn furniture. Curious as to what this person's RfA was like, the digging went back to the apparent dark ages of 2003 , when the new admin nominations went along the lines of "he's got lots of edits!" with a half-dozen votes to seal the deal.

I don't understand this. Did Connolley just pick Tex (T-C-L-K-R-D) at random, and single him out for having "agreed with Giano" in opposing FlyingToaster's RfA? I don't see any clear evidence of a previous dispute between these two - Tex doesn't involve himself with climate-related articles, and Connelley doesn't involve himself much with sports and, well, Texas.

I mean, it literally looks like Connolley picked him at random. Or, if not, then the tendency to be stirred to negative action by a chance disagreeable remark is a sign of possible stress-related emotional fragility. He might be burning out, possibly in a fairly big way.

Maybe he doesn't like Texans?

LessHeard vanU is currently undergoing a reconfirmation RfA. Admittedly there's a lot of bleating going on there about how it's a waste of time and all.

As I understand it, LHvU's reconfirmation is an entirely voluntary, ceremonial affair, like a long-married couple renewing their vows. What we need is a sort of "vote of no confidence" mechanism where the "community" can dump a bad admin.

William Connelley is a POV-pusher?...............But he has got his own biography (carefully protected by himself) which is 3-4 times longer than scientists who have actually done something useful in their careers.

Wikipedia activity

In 2005, the scientific journal Nature wrote a comparison of the relative reliability of Wikipedia and the print-based Encyclopedia Britannica.[9] In the Nature article, Connolley was discussed as an example of an expert who regularly contributes to Wikipedia.[10]

A July 2006 New Yorker explains that Connolley briefly became "a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming," in which a skeptic repeatedly watered down the article's explanation of the greenhouse effect.[11] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia's arbitration committee, insisting that Connolley was pushing his own point of view into the article by removing points of view with which he disagreed.[11] The arbitration committee eventually placed Connolley on parole, although this was later revoked and Connolley went on to become an administrator.[11] Jimbo Wales cited the sanctions against Connolley as a failure of the system.[11] The article explains that Connolley believes "that Wikipedia 'gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about'".[11]

An October 2006 Nature article on the "rival" Citizendium project quotes Connolley as saying that "some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia" but adds that he believes that "conflict can sometimes result in better articles."[12]

Um, isn't there some kind of "official policy" against this?.....