Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] William M. Connolley

final (129/23/4) ending 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) – An editor whom I shall declare is well respected by much of the community. For those unfamiliar with his first RFA, he is a climate modeller who is very knowledgeable in the areas of his expertise, such as climate change, its related fields and physics. He is resilient and willing to explain at length, knows how to gauge consensus, works and colloborates well with other users, has good humour and character and overall, a virtuous person who I think we can trust administrator priveleges with. He contributes significantly to the project and is very much dedicated with it that I think he would be extremely valuable as a sysop. He is very good at maintaining a neutral point of view in articles; he remains cool and patient in any dispute. He is someone the community can trust. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honoured to accept William M. Connolley 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Support

  1. Support. Naturally, as nominator. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support outstanding decision, Elle. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. William is a very experienced, even-handed, and valuabe contributor. His patience is sometimes limited, but that is a very large limit.--Stephan Schulz 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I'm taking the unusual step of supporting before the candidate has accepted and answered the questions, because (a) it will encourage him to say yes, and (b) I am satisfied with his answers from last time. David | Talk 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - obvious, since I nominated him last time. Guettarda 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - first valid vote ;-) (Relax, guys, I'm sure your votes will be counted by the 'crat as well. I think the protocol is to wait until the bell rings.). --Ancheta Wis 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    We could always re-vote, but then we'd be meatpuppets... oh dear, which rule to ignore? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Supported before and still support - Vsmith 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, but can I vote oppose so you don't waste much time on janitor tasks? - Taxman Talk 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. -- DS1953 talk 17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, as I did in July. Superb contributor and likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. --Ian Pitchford 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support'#— Dunc|☺ 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, mature and committed user. Unlikely to abuse administrative tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. The ArbCom having removed the revert limitation as "unnecessary" and the reopened case having reached a better conclusion than the original, concerns in that regard are dispelled. I'd stress, hopefully without need, that William M. Connolley should be ultra-very-extremely-cautious in any use he might consider making of admin powers on anything related to climate change. -Splashtalk 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. KHM03 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, with an encouragement to read WP:BEANS after response to number 8 below. Jkelly 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support We need good knowledgeable editors who are willing to tackle controversial topics. The consequence of tackling such controversial topics seems to be some oppose votes. For willingness to take on such topics, I believe it would be fair if the percentage required to be appointed was reduced. crandles 22:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, as last time. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - he probably should have been sysopped last time. Chick Bowen 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Good grief. --Jay (Reply) 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, same as last time.-gadfium 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, seconding Splash's advice above. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support checked you over earlier and your edits look sound.--MONGO 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. This one's a cinch. --King of All the Franks 02:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Rob Church Talk 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Dragons flight 02:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Good admin candidate. --rogerd 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. OMG Support.  Grue  06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support: --Bhadani 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - BanyanTree 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support I liked the answers to the questions below. --Chris S. 08:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. I like all his 9 answers but I'm gonna give him a 10th question. - Darwinek 09:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Seems like this candidate would make a briliant admin. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 11:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Certainly, old mate of mine from down the years in Cambridge. Charles Matthews 11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. A pleasure. Ambi 13:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support -- sannse (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Why do we always write "support" anyway? Well I'm not doing it, dammit. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    Er...I think you just did... — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support BlankVerse 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Highly knowledgeable contributor--Confuzion 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - Should be a good admin -- Francs2000 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Good contributor who will likely make good use of the admin tools. Decent responses to the optional questions. --Deathphoenix 17:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. I opposed last time, but I now feel confident that WMC would make a good admin. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Izehar 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Jim62sch 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Enthusiastically support. --Pjacobi 19:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Hooray for weather! adamsan 19:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support For atmospheric civility in RFArs and reversion edit summaries. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support as per above. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, but of course. Anyone with that much patience... (PS: Is anyone else surprised at the lack of oppose votes?) Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support, proud to support a fellow atmospheric scientist. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. utcursch | talk 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. But keep on editing! Thincat 14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. --Viriditas 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. Have had very good experiences with him on the talk page for Global warming and related-topic articles, with resolving disputes. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support TestPilot 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support –Joke 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support, just remembered to Sceptre (Talk) 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Looks like a runaway, but Support regardless. -Colin Kimbrell 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support very knowledgeable and good to work with even when he disagrees with you Salsb 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support Nothing I have seen would lead me to expect abuse of powers. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support Dan100 (Talk) 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. NSLE (T+C) 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support until the claim that he deleted materials from talkpages(excluding personal attacks and stuff unrelated to the article) for POV reasons is documented. Fad (ix) 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Yes, yes, yes, yes Phil Sandifer 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Jacoplane 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Certainly--cj | talk 06:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support. Good, hardworking user; he'll make a good administrator. Outstanding patience and energy in dealing with fringe science and pseudoscience, as mentioned below. Keep up your fine editing once you're an administrator! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support.Valued contributor, sysop tools should be safe enough in his hands.--cjllw | TALK 07:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. --Carnildo 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support --Calton | Talk 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. "Aetherometry", huh? give the man a mop already. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support Axon (talk|contribs) 09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support. Rd232 talk
  86. Support. —Ruud 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support'. WIlliams edits to the highly controversial global warming article are exemplary. Because William has been involved in so many controversial subjects, I suggest that votes against him should count as votes in favor if those votes come from people who have repeatedly promoted the "POV" pseudoscientific viewpoint as if it is the "NPOV" mainstream.Count Iblis 13:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Mop, bucket and cookies for WMC. I actually came here with some concerns about the way WMC has handled the Great Footnote War and User:SEWilco. But the aetherometrist Oppose votes below have done a great job of convincing me that the user will use adminship tools responsibly and well. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
  89. Support Oppose votes are poorly reasoned, WMC is a great contributor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support.--JK the unwise 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support Fred Bauder 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Fine. --JuntungWu 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support Secretlondon 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support--Duk 16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. The nom appears entirely correct, especially with the ensuing discussion in the oppose section. Some may find him too "controversial" to support, but that would be a shame. One will get dirtied when combatting factions of POV-pushers who have a lot of time on their hands. This is not a reson to oppose, but to support, else who will take on the job? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Will he abuse tools? No. Ergo, support. [[Sam Korn]] 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support, same reasons as last time.--Eloquence* 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support --Christopher Thomas 18:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Support: Has shown considerable diligence and patience in keeping pseudoscience articles in check.--Philosophus 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (Please see my user page if this vote is needed.)
    Point of Order Philosophus on his/her userpage says this is a second account created for privacy reasons. Is that kosher for voting purposes? Everyone else is forced to use the login they are known by; reputations are all we have as Wikiegos. (A second account for privacy for editing controversial articles is allowed , no argument with that; the issue is voting privately). A la Kant, do we want most everyone to start to use hidden account names for voting? It's a community issue. I am not saying Philosophus is a sockpuppet of anyone, or is a new user, or is trying to vote twice. The admins can checkuser. The only issue is whether these private votes should be allowed. Without a policy saying otherwise, (a general secret ballot), I say no. GangofOne 12:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    As GangofOne makes a valid point here, and there is considerable support already, I am removing this vote. --Philosophus 17:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support science and reason --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support: he was asked eleven(!) questions and he answered them well, so he gets my vote. Jonathunder 02:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Strong Support of contributors for core subjects the public expects Wikipedia to do well. - RoyBoy 800 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. Samsara 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support. Junes 09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support good user that deals with a lot of the dirty work. Quaque (talk • contribs) 10:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support, good user, and I must thank SEWilco for bringing this RFA to my attention, I might have missed it otherwise. --Stormie 11:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support with some reservations due to Oppose comments about removing others' Talk discussion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 13:10Z
  109. Support William M. Connolley is a responsible user, who has greatly contributed to several articles, and in does so in good nature. Avador 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support --Neigel von Teighen 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support I opposed previous RfA due to the arbcom problems. We need people like him- Wikipedia has a bit too much tolerance for crackpot scientific theories. Borisblue 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    I disagree. What you need is an honest policy that unequivocally rejects from Wikipedia articles on topics about which there is no mainstream literature and that the Wikipedia "consensus" thinks are crackpot or is unable to evaluate on truly scientific grounds. You do not need people who, after the article has been accepted into Wikipedia, make it a target of endless harassment to vent their bias against what they consider "crackpot". This is simply not right, you know. FrankZappo 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support, per above, and per most of the oppose arguments too. ;-) SCZenz 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support He's a little controversial and has opinions, but who doesn't? I've seen him revert a little more than I would, but I see no reason for him not to be an admin. In fact, I'm surprised he's not already one. --DanielCD 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support Simesa 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support Ben Aveling 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support Knowledgeable and wise. Scientifically minded. Accountable and authoritative. What's there not to like?--Fangz 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support Good editor DaGizzaChat (c) 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support. As before, and as above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support. Swirlix 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. Weak support, because I feel that subject-matter experts such as Connolley should be spending even more of their time improving articles instead of diddling with vandals like the rest of us, and I hope he won't use too much of his Wikipedia time doing admin tasks. Adminship isn't some kind of reward for being a great editor. That said, if he wants to help out with admin tasks, he's certainly well-qualified. —Cleared as filed. 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support I have avoided injecting myself in the various disputes to which this editor has been a party, and make no judgment on those matters; however, the editor is clearly experienced and professional. I trust him to use admin powers fairly, and to refrain from using them in matters where he is an involved editor. Xoloz 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support. I trust him. Dmn 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support. I'll break my personal vow not to vote on this page again to support him. Connolley is a good, long-term supporter of Wikipedia - how many times does he need to prove this? I'm 100% sure he would use admin powers in that vein, jguk 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support per opposers. Words don't say as much as the meaning around them, and the meaning around this rfa screams that William is qualified for the job. Karmafist 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support the materialist-scientific cabal. Ashibaka tock 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support Sarah Ewart 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support Jossi 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support - Bobet 05:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. In my observations of, and experiences with, William M. Connolley, he showed himself the exact opposite of what is described in his nomination. I have observed him, and/or interacted with him, in connection with several entries in non-mainstream science - a category of endeavour that he has a strong bias against. He has treated with contempt and extreme rudeness any contributor who did not share his bias. He reverted their edits without explanation, repeatedly deleted their posts in Talk pages (yes, he does this a lot) because he didn't like what they said, and generally treated them as if they were non-persons and the Wikipedia rules of conduct did not have to be followed in dealing with them. I do not believe that working in - or knowing something about, or not being hostile to, or having an interest in - a non-mainstream science, is sufficient reason for being treated with this kind of contempt, and I think that it is outrageous that Connolley permits himself to act in this manner. It is all right for Connolley to have a bias, and it is all right if he doesn't want to inform himself about areas that he considers abhorrent. But if he has such a bias, he should excuse himself from working on entries that he is strongly biased against. Instead, he parades his bias as if it was a badge of merit, and his ignorance of those areas as if it was a virtue. Sorry, folks, that's not honorable behaviour. FrankZappo 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    FrankZappo is a member of a group that has accused us all of being a "neo-maoist cabal" (or actually, a "techno-cult of ignorance" [1]). As this user has shown very little interest in actually contributing or participating in the community other than furthering his own cause, treating consensus with contempt, I move the vote be discounted. This of course, is left up to the closing bureaucrat. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is unsubstantiated nonsense. I am not a member of any "group", and have not had anything to do with the web page you quote. If you are referring to the "consensus" that keeps putting various non-mainstream scientific endeavours in the "pseudoscience" category, this is a "consensus" of people who don't have the slightest idea what these endeavours are about, and yet see fit to disparage them. You're right, I don't have any respect for this kind of "consensus", just like I don't have respect for the "consensus" of a lynch mob. And no, I have no interest in your so-called "community". Why would I, and why should I? I am interested in science, not "community" . I thought we were here to evaluate Connolley's courtesy, transparency, accountability, competence, hospitality, etc. What do my "communal" inclinations or disinclinations have to do with it? FrankZappo 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    You are a supporter of the Correas under aetherometry; Helicoid's comments were also seen there. The whole point of an RFA is to evaluate the candidate's trust by the community. For example, sockpuppets may not vote. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    What I am a supporter of is the scientific method. I am a supporter of the notion that dissident scientific proposals should be evaluated not by the measuring stick of bigotry and fear of the new, but by an open-minded, careful approach that aims at an impartial evaluation of the experimental evidence, the methodologies, the claimed results, the conclusions drawn. It pains me to see that the Wikipedia "community" permits and encourages the rise of scientific bigots to positions of authority, and permits them virtually a free hand when it comes to anything having to do with science. Believe me, you will not get any real scientists contributing to Wikipedia for as long as you appoint "administrators" such as Connolley. What you will get is other bigots like Connolley. This is what I am nota supporter of. And I am also not a supporter of the recurring Wikipedia "community" tactic of opportunistically redirecting the discussion towards insinuation and trying to cast vague aspersions on the good faith of inconvenient contributors. FrankZappo 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bigotry does not include being favoured towards mainstream science. Aetherometry, AFAIK has not been peer-reviewed by the scientific community, only by small numbers. That is not a qualification of a scientific method. The Galileo-complex should be discarded; it isn't fear the new, but rather the way the article was previously written in such an arrogant tone, rather than stating it is aetherometry's view, one stated the model of aetherometry as fact. Pgio did a good job of cleaning that up, while Helicoid and the rest only continued pushing their POV. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well I do appreciate the compliment, Natalinasmpf, as casting the article in Wikipedia style was exactly my intention, but I have to disagree about Helicoid and "other users." Insisting repeatedly that editors actually understand the subject and produce references rather than insinuations is hardly outrageous or POV, unless, apparently, your view is mainstream. Even Helicoid offered first to rework the article in Wikipedia style before the onslaught of the know-nothings.Pgio 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    FZ's rudness towards me is easily found: [2], [3], [4], [5]. I think I was distinctly measured and polite in my replies, and I'll note that FZ doesn't actually provide any examples for his assertions. William M. Connolley 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
    My dear Connolley, I am not talking about isolated instances of rudeness on your part. The whole history of the Aetherometry entry at at Wikipedia is one long and consistent example of your bigotry, bias, and contempt both for those who know anything about the topic of the entry and for the policies of Wikipedia. And make no mistake - although I did not contribute to "Wikipedia, a Techno-Cult of Ignorance", I have to agree with much of the picture it paints. And I also agree with much of what the sequel to that piece, Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines has to say about Wikipedia's nature, hype, philosophy, and scientific bigotry. And, of course, about the ludicrous "Nature" 'study' concerning Wikipedia's "scientific accuracy". FrankZappo 16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    The sheer stereotyping of the community into nerds, and FrankZappo's utter disdain for the community, or the encyclopedia in itself. There have been some administrators who have been acting unilaterally, whose names I will not mention at this moment for the very sake of maintaining harmony, but they seek the encyclopedia's best interest - whether it actually is the subject of much RFC and arbitration election deliberation. Yet, this is unlike Zappo in question, who doesn't actually seek the encyclopedia's best interests and wishes to sabotage it in every way. Furthermore, to accuse Connolley of being a bigot on the issue is to similarly label Theresa knott and many other members of the community all of which have particularly good reputations. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hey Natalinasmpf, nice job changing your tag there, very pretty. Almost didn't realize you'd done the nomination. Everyone passing by should know she's embroiled in this Aetherometry conflict as well. I think you're totally off-base calling FZ a saboteur. All I've seen him do is try to ensure the factual accuracy of an article he was interested in the face of know-nothings. That's what I've been doing too. And suggesting that WMC and Theresa Knott and other well-respected members of the community should be given a pass for bigotry on this subject means, I guess, that Wikipedia should value and reward bigotry. Pgio 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Everyone passing by should know she's embroiled in this Aetherometry conflict as well. Yeah, she was helping you in your edit war to remove the Category:Pseudoscience tag -- until she got tired of your nonsense. Also, the more you keep misusung the word "bigotry", the less sympathy you're going to get. --Calton | Talk 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oh Calton, you grumpy gus. Looking at the edit history, it seems Natalinasmpf would like to keep the compromise she fostered, so I don't think you can say she's grown tired of my nonsense, whatever you might mean by that. I have certainly grown tired of "your" refusal to produce any evidence that you've even investigated the literature of Aetherometry, coupled with your insistent judgement, as if ignorance is a badge of pride for you. That is truly nonsensical.Pgio 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    That is truly nonsensical. A perfectly apt description of that farrago of faux-regret, projection, falsehoods, and distortions that constitute your last post. I can see why actual scientific journals don't publish you. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ooh, Calton has moved up rhetorically from the rasberry to 'I am rubber, you are glue!' I guess we should expect 'my dad can beat up your dad' next? Pgio 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hold on. First, let me thank Pgio for the compliment on my signature. Secondly, I wish to clarify I wasn't "assisting" anyone in an edit war. As much as I disapprove of aetherometry, I felt it was much more constructive for the article's development to fall under "aether theories", which was an appropriate qualifier. The thing is, it is not supported by large-scale peer review. It also hasn't been disapproved by large-scale peer review. Then there's the entire conflict over the definition of what aetherometry is. So, I wasn't "tired" of anything, I just didn't want to violate the three revert rule. I don't like taking sides. Cheers. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose per Frank. (Too controversial at the moment, may support later). --Kefalonia 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Connolley stirkes me as the type of editor who will abuse his admin status to enforce his pov. DTC 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Let's look at Connolley's behavior when he's miffed. In WMC's link number 4 from above [6] FZ only says I just don't like Connolley. And WMC removed that comment from the Aetherometry Talk page three times, and then changed the article's category to Pseudoscience, with this comment: (reinsert PS, thanks to FZ) [7]. Then he edited FZ's complaint about THAT action off the Talk page [8]. That's just incredibly petty and downright dishonest. I have no confidence WMC will use admin powers any better than that. And all this on a subject he refuses to actually read or understand! Let me put this in Wikpedia terms: WMC calling Aetherometry pseudoscience without actually reading the source material is like a guy who's never seen any anime insisting that Blue Submarine #6 must be about tentacle rape because it's animated, Japanese, and takes place underwater -- or so he's heard. Why would you people trust a guy that won't even admit he doesn't know what he doesn't know? Pgio 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Calling Aetherometry pseudoscience is gentle. It violates some of the strongest, most validated scientific theories out there (among others, thermodynamics and relativity). Support for it is non-existant among serious physicists. Experimental evidence is negligible. It's very easy to come up with crap. That's why scientists use a simple crap filter. If it is unsupported, but in blatant conflict with known laws of physics, it does not deserve detailed analysis. We do science. Arguing with propellerheads is typically not productive, and not part of the job description of a scientist. Come when your perpetuum mobile has earned you the first million dollars. --Stephan Schulz 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Nice, dude. Your first comment on the matter is to -- rush to judgement. What literature in Aetherometry did you actually review to determine that the experimental evidence is negligible? Care to comment on the mechanisms covered by the Correas' patents? Care to actually differentiate between laws of Physics (which Aetherometry does not violate) and received scientific wisdom? Care to resolve a spacetime singularity while you're at it? Your crap filter is an excuse for lazy thinking, I'm afraid. And note, the mobile would be no more perpetual than any other; it is the understanding of the nature, place and quantity of accessible energy in the universe that is different. Pgio 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    What scientific literature on Aetherometry is there? I found only non-peer reviewed fantasy (and bad fantasy, at that). "Infinite Energy" indeed....--Stephan Schulz 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    The primary literature, Schulz -- the direct record of the Correas' experiments and reasoning. The same place one has to start with any protoscience. You could gain insight into the accretion of the scientific ideas our society has received through the Correas' analysis of scientific history, if you were inclined to read.Pgio 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    So there is no peer-reviewed publication around? I found none...Google Scholar has nothing, further search brought only an unreviewed monograph and articles in "Infinite Energy", which has no standing at all. This is about as "scientific" as Dianetics. The Correas' analysis of scientific history is entirely irrelevant, although I'd like to point out that they don't seem to be uninvolved enough for a neutral analysis. What I've read of the "primary record" so far is bunk. But maybe you can point me to some coherent collection? I've reasonable access to several large scientific libraries. --Stephan Schulz 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Nobody's disputing that you won't find aetherometry in peer-reviewed journals that you, personally, would accept. But saying their analysis of scientific history is irrelevant? How can you possibly know that? I'd say your objection to their neutrality because the actually practice science is pretty bizzarre. And please, what bit of the "primary record" have you read that you call bunk? Pgio 10:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Agree with SS. Basically you complaining that guy put pseudoscience tag on pseudoscience article. And article itself state: The term ... is not in use by mainstream physicists, and ... is not supported by scientific consensus! I truly think we should promote such a nice guy. TestPilot 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    'Scuse me? The def of the category "pseudoscience" says: "This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method." I would like to see a cogent argument from you as to why Aetherometry, in your view, is inconsistent with scientific principles and method. And don't give me this crap about scientific consensus; the scientific method does not require any such consensus. One can be on a desert island and still do science that follows the scientific method and the scientific principles. So git! gimme your arguments. FrankZappo 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, as someone had previously observed, it is pretty silly of Wikipedia to commit to the view that any endeavour that is "alleged by its critics" to be unscientific, belongs in the "pseudoscience" category. There are very few major scientific frameworks or endeavours that have not, at one time or another, been "alleged by their critics" to be unscientific. You will have to put most everything into the "pseudoscience" bag, guys. FrankZappo 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    I've fixed the category description, thanks for pointing it out. --Stephan Schulz 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per reasoning stated above. JSIN 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Frank and DTC. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. He allows his POV to damage Wikipedia. SEWilco 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WMC deletes citation information and violates official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability due to lack of time [9] or being 'icky'[10] or without explanation [11][12], deletes citations which disagree with his POV because he can't figure out what text refers to them [13] either because in he opposes having text connected to citations [14] (which he deleted in preceding "lack of time" example) or because there is no material which uses the citations because he already deleted related material which goes against his POV instead of fixing a dead URL [15][16] (he is willing to fix dead URLs with ones to his own site [17][18]).
    • WMC violated his parole many times. [19][20], although nobody noticed the violations during his previous vote for Administrator status nor during months more of violations.
    • There will be fewer limits on his behavior, as a minimum on his shown reversion behavior.[21]
    • WMC, a climate modeler, cut two paragraphs about problems with computer simulations with an edit comment "Climate models- (potentially controversial) remove two paras, on the grounds that solar and clouds are already mentioned, and detail is not needed here - should be in GCM article."[22] but he failed to move the paragraphs to the GCM article.[23]
    • WMC created an article about a blog (RealClimate) in which he participates, and has removed critical material [24] which seems to have been supported.[25]
    (SEWilco 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
    If you're wondering about SEW's oppose, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2#Remedies is informative. William M. Connolley 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  8. Oppose. Describing Connolley as someone who "is resilient and willing to explain at length, knows how to gauge consensus, works and colloborates well with other users, has good humour and character and overall, a virtuous person who I think we can trust administrator priveleges with" is just plain silly. If you want an easy example to the contrary, just look at his most recent unilateral short-circuiting of the vote to remove Cold Fusion from the Featured Articles ([26]). The vote started on Dec 27th, and was kicked off by the claim on the part of User Noren that, as a result of copious edits by the proponents of "the fringe view that the phenomenon actually exists", the article's quality had degraded. The vote was to decide whether to keep the article as "featured" in its then current form, revert it to the form it was in when it was declared "featured", or "un-feature" it. On Jan 3rd, in the middle of the voting process, Connolley first cast this vote, referring to those who don't share his bias as "loonies":
    Revert and keep or remove, as per Taxman. In addition: I don't see why leaving this one to the loonies is acceptable: reverting to sanity should be no problem in a well-conducted encyclopedia. William M. Connolley 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC).
    and 13 minutes later unilaterally reverted the article:
    There being no obvious reason not to, I've done the said revert. William M. Connolley 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC).
    Disdain for other contributors, disregard for the "community" and for "consensus" (when it is anything other than a "consensus" of people who share his own biases), contemptuous uncooperativeness, and acting as if he was the salt of the earth and the ruling authority on science. These are supposed to be the qualities of "a virtuous person" who can be trusted with administratoir privileges? Gimme a break. Helicoid 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    The cold fusion RFC had strong support for going back to the featured version (if not, it was going to lose its FA status as people were concerned about the psuedo-science that had been inserted). It seemed a good idea to test if there was indeed support for that, so I found the FA version and reverted to it. Lo and behold, there *was* support for that version, because thats largely what is there now.
    Helcoid is another aetherometrist, as you'll see from her contribs [27]. Interestingly, this is her first contrib since June last year so I rather suspect someone has been ringing up their friends... William M. Connolley 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
    Yeah, yeah, the usual "virtuous" Connolley techniques - fudging and insinuation. And what, you don't ring up your friends? You even try to convince people who voted against you to change their minds. See Kefalonia's Talk page, for example. As for the CF article, anybody who reads the vote can see that there was support for reverting. But there was also support for the other options, and the vote was not completed. And the fact that the reverted version is "largely what is there now" is no proof of anything, given that the "opposition" ultimately mostly gets reverted by the Wikipedia "watchdogs" or otherwise discouraged from making a real effort. Virtuous and highly "communal" tactics indeed. Helicoid 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I support NPOV, not SPOV, and I'm not convinced this user a/ shares that view or b/ would use admin powers to pursue the end of NPOV.Grace Note 08:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose any man aspiring to ride upon a "benevolent dictatorship". Oppose any man who implies that sovereignty is something that one is ever capable of granting down to another. Oppose any man who considers " the problems of transition to full user sovereignty" "not worth solving at this stage." (So ironic, to then wistfully wonder why knowledgeable people do not contribute more). Oppose any man harboring such foolish contempt, for people are sovereign de jure ab initio (by right, from the beginning). Oppose any man failing to have learned such a basic tenet of humanity, and oppose still more, placing him in a position to arbitrate science. An arbiter whose contempt for dissident science is well known, and who, in his new position, will most assuredly permit it to color his rulings.
    Dr. Connolley: Please accept my sincere admiration for your apparent (based upon what one can see of you through the internet, whatever that's worth, right?) affection for the environment. Clearly, one would be literally suicidal if one did not face the need for caring stewardship of Mother Earth. Your dedication, and probably great passion for what you do, is a good and just thing. However, I strongly fear that you have been carried away with the heroic image you have projected upon yourself. It is not an uncommon pitfall for those who have become aware of their surroundings and placement in time.
    Much of dissident science carries within itself, as a fundamental, the same desire to understand and protect the very same Mother Earth you and I both ride upon. Failing to offer this basic understanding to your technical 'opponents' in science, while using your position to gain combative advancement, demonstrates a dogmatic commitment to your deeply internalized 'understandings' as the 'one and only proper position to have'. What you appear to do, habitually or by intention, is to disparage those who have chosen alternative veins (A particular turn of mind, from an initial point) of scientific endeavor, and to simultaneously retard both your work and theirs. A pinnacle of egocentrism, that you act this way towards sciences which, like yours, strive to benefit Mother Earth, while you use your own involvement with her as a banner of righteousness. This is simply not right (and turns the stomachs of many).
    State here unequivocally that you understand the very important role, and yes, even the great advancements historically achieved through dissident sciences, and how they, more than any other, have been the greatest 'cash crop' for humanity.... Acknowledge that you are merely a shill for the mainstream, a PAID agent for approved government science, a man deeply steeped in the ways and means of acceptable (accepted) school-book learning and academia.... That you are a contemptible, lowly man enraptured by your own self-image and ego.... in short, be honest, and I'll even change my vote to support you as a very prolific wikipedian administrator advancing the very best that mainstream science has to offer. Which is horrifically 'not much' considering the stratospheric levels of funding your ranks receive. TTLightningRod 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    The community is young - we don't need to redistribute power until the second generation of users arrive, or until it gets much larger. Oh, please move some of your comments voluntarily to the talk page, leaving a link. I do not wish to antagonise you by doing it myself. Cheers. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes Natalinasmpf, this wiki and its predominant users are young, combined, this is a particularly malleable forum for crafting a 'company line' by the very army who will be controlled by it, especially if they think its their OWN line. I'm not besmirching you Natalinasmpf by saying this... you too seem very well intentioned, but I'm perfectly just of stating the obvious, that malleability is the choicest clay of "benevolent dictators".
    My opposition to William IS NOT because he effectively, diligently, and with admirable dedication, presents mainstream understandings. He is very well suited for such a task, I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that admin tools might very well stream-line his ability to do this in place of those who haven't captured the 'accepted' understanding on par with his own 'unparalleled' clarity. I strongly oppose him, because I do not trust him. I do not trust him to allow much, let alone fair, space for scientific theory (which merely conflicts with his own) to appear in the 'grand new experiment' of free knowledge. A damn encyclopedia they call it, of all things. There is no shortage of space here, space enough to capture ALL theory and exploration.... no matter how cooky it may sound to differing groups. Using such a collection, a genuine free thinker will be able to run the gamete through this playground, and BUILD there own conclusions. William does not trust you to do this. His lack of trust about you, is very different than mine about him.
    William wants very much to craft and bend the information that appears in pages presenting concepts hinting at very fundamental understandings of how we perceive our world. For example, the corollary, and thus questions about the causal order of electrical phenomenon in the behavior of atmospheric developments. Simply, William sees electrical phenomenon as a by-product of cyclonic action, where others postulate cyclonic action as a by-product of electrical phenomenon. Serious Big Bang questions ensue, and Willy is off and running. He has disturbingly little tolerance for those who do not see it his way, and has done a smashing job of driving such people away from this 'encyclopedia' simply trying to point out 'impossible' conflicts with his world view. TTLightningRod 16:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Connolley is biased and rude. He refuses to read original sources, which is a cardinal sin in academic science. He unilaterally reverted the article on cold fusion, wiping out days of work by me and others, including 40 footnotes that I inserted with considerable effort. He will not allow any point of view but his own, whereas I and others who disagree with him were careful to preserve his statements. --JedRothwell 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not sure if it matters because anyone can see these votes for what they are, but Jed has made his views on improving Wikipedia pretty clear. [28] And of course the revert to the FA version was far from unilateral. There was strong consensus on the FARC discussion page for cold fusion that Jed's edits had deteriorated the quality of the article. And since this has been advertized among the aetherists and CF people, expect more to come. - Taxman Talk 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: having watched his battle with an anonymous editor and later others at Michael Mann (scientist), Ross McKitrick, and Temperature record of the past 1000 years about separate calculation errors Mann and McKitrick had made, I would have said his behaviour was less civil than would be expected from an administrator (the anon was as bad but has not been nominated here), too prone to quick reverts for an administrator, and too unwilling to consider other people's opinions and external evidence to enable a NPOV position to develop easily. --Audiovideo 23:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Ben 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - too much controversy. -- Netoholic @ 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per above. --badlydrawnjeff 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose As an example of our strained communication: William M Connnolley read one my sources superficially, took a single sentence out of context, gave it a wrong interpretation, and wrote: "BTW, note that CT's favourite ref - Persson - supports this" I then showed how William M Connolley had fudged to suit his wishes, and William M Connolley did not reply to that. --Cleonis | Talk 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose numerous concerns, including dishonesty and a lack of explanation of edits. —James S. 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Both the accusations are false; the explanation for this vote is that I (and many other editors) opposed James S's pushing his pet graph into global warming and elsewhere; see Talk:Global_warming/extreme_weather_extrapolation_graph for just one part of the discussion. William M. Connolley 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
  18. Oppose I believe he is basically a good guy but unfortnately I have no confidence he will use admin powers in an even-handed way. On the plus side, he assumed good faith when I had a 3RR vio [29] (actually my first 3RR ever). On the minus side that 3RR was due to him repeatedly removing a disputed tag in the presence of a bona-fide dispute [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] the reasons for which were amply explained on the talk page. Turns out he didn't actually taken the time to read the explanation on the talk page. Earlier, he had deleted most of the sources for that article [35] by reverting to a version which was more than a year old and not taking the time to copy the sources over. (Btw later on we engaged in constructive dialogue and more or less arrived at a consensus version of that page). Bottom line: he is not a bad editor, and I bear him no ill will, but I fear he might be a bad admin, particularly since he gets into fights on articles about controversial science topics. ObsidianOrder 05:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    P.S. Admins should be held to a higher standard that regular users; editors engaged in controversy have no business being admins; therefore, I would decline if I was nominated, for example ;)
    Additional P.S. I just read William's response to the question about the Troika. The fact that he is not immediately and unequivocally opposed to it is sufficient to disqualify him (or any other candidate for admin) in my mind. YMMV. ObsidianOrder 08:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    That was a proposal by the arbitration comittee. Are you saying those on it shouldn't be admins as well? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    That was a proposal by one member of the arbitration committee, which did not get a very favorable response. Am I saying the person who came up with the original idea shouldn't be an admin or on arbcom? Yes, absolutely. I have voted accordingly. ObsidianOrder 09:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - Treatment of Askanas (aka Helicoid) was bluff, his editing on the Aetherometry page when Askanas was active was butchery. I do not think this candidate will act responsibly with new admin powers.--Knucmo2 12:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    It's not their page, it's a Wikipedia page. It should be NPOV, which in particular requires that the mainstream scientific opinion should be adequately represented.--Stephan Schulz 12:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Carelessness on my part by using a pronoun instead of the definite article. I've amended it.--Knucmo2 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Are we supposed to be more sensitive because they edited the article, rather than someone else writing about their work? So if Bill Gates decided to edit on Wikipedia, made a bunch of POV edits to Microsoft, and disparaged Linux, then proceeded to get involved in a bunch of edit wars, I suppose if other editors treat him with hostility in kind, is that "butchery"? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am not here to give you moral guidance as to how you should proceed in the future. You present a horrifically skewed perspective (your perspective) of the Aetherometry debate by analogy to the hypothetical Bill Gates example you gave. But you have shown yourself capable of making assumptions and breaking WP:NPOV about things which you know not a jot about. It was you I believe who denigrated Aetherometry as "Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax" on 20 Jun 2005, or an "extensive fraud" on 21 June 2005 without providing any evidence of actually studying aetherometry. Two wrongs make a right, of which you seem to advocate here: "if other editors treat him with hostility in kind is that "butchery"?" is a logical fallacy.--Knucmo2 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - he's basically called everyone involved in the extremely productive Cold fusion talk page an idiot in his longish anti-wikipedia rant. Simply put, anyone who sits down to write a multi-page character assasination like that one makes me seriously concerned about NPOV issues. I will temper this by noting that he did it out of the wiki, a good sign, but if he takes his own writings even partially seriously, then I can't understand why he's even here -- does he like to hang around in "toilets"? Maury 13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ummmm, Maury, William didn't write that. It was written by advocates of Aetherometry (see the oppose comments above), and I believe William posted it to the CF talk page to point out what he considered to be a humorous section that they had written on CF. Dragons flight 13:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I was totally baffled at how you could connect that attack piece by the Correas with William. Guettarda 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Especially since it accuses William specifically. And it accuses me. Can we strike out this oppose vote, considering it seems to be by mistake? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes please, strike my vote. As people have pointed out, I have confused myself! Maury 18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. OPPOSE : Not that this vote will seem to turn the tide ... but I feel it is a sad day when WMC get his appointment. WMC is very good at pushing a scientific point of view in articles (not NPOV); he attacks people that he disagrees with and, attimes, impatient in disputes. He is someone the community cannot trust (especially with npov vs spov). From my earliest interactions with William, he has repeatedly been uncivil. He also has made mischaraterization of me. J. D. Redding 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (ps., he'll probably attack this post and me too and not address the points about him [spov spushing, incivilility, personaly attacks, etc ...])
    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Statement_by_William_M._Connolley & Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_William_M._Connolley suffice here William M. Connolley 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
  21. Oppose Dishonest and impossible to work with if he disagrees with you. See talk. I am the anonymous user Audiovideo was talking about. --Facethefacts 01:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Given the fact that this editor uses citations that say exactly the opposite of what he claims they say, we should probably interpret this as a Suppor vote for an honest editor. Guettarda 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    The citation evidence is in the page history, the deleted links and the talk pages. The criticisms of Michael Mann included direct quotes in a serious Dutch scientific magazine from a respected scientist and a link to [36] - dismissed by WMC as gossip. Remember [37] when you (Guettarda) called me an "asshole", having a "right-wing agenda" and out to "screw everyone else" after I had reverted an article back to one of your edits? Strangely enough WMC did not delete that personal attack from the talk page. --Facethefacts 04:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    For one, you were alleging that the paper said the opposite of what it said, so your use of the citation was dishonest. As to the second - you are obviously pushing a right-wing anti-science agenda, you were an asshole, and I had no patience with your rubbish on the day that my country's capital city was subject to a random bombing that blew people's limbs off, at a time when those people I care about could easily have been there. But, it would appear, that you would rather insult people...on a day like that I called a spade a spade. That you dig up that sort of stuff, well, I suppose it says a lot about the kind of person you are. Guettarda 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    The only reason continuing to debate this is that WMC invited you to help him in his battle against me [38], showing something about his judgement. Here is the quote from the magazine linked above: A good starting point for our story seemed to be a critical article in Science by the German scientist Hans von Storch on Mann’s hockey stick. When I asked him how difficult it was to get it accepted, he said: “This time it was easy, because for once we didn’t have Mann as a referee.” Now compare it with what I wrote and you and WMC insisted on deleting [39] [40]: An author of a paper raising comments about his work noted that it became easy to publish "once we did not have Michael Mann as a referee". with a link to the article. You could have inserted "because for" before "once" if you thought it made a difference; I didn't think it did. But the meaning is clearly similar, not the opposite. --Facethefacts 06:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, as per Kefalonia. enochlau (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I am in agreement with him much of the time, and feel somewhat out of place in this oppose list, but William M. Connolley is not infallable and does not react well when he is mistaken. While his editing contributions may be very valuable, I nevertheless do not think he's a good choice for an admin role. Some time ago, I had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a reversion war with him on what would normally be a relatively dry, non-controversial topic: the Roche Limit. He violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule by readding the word "orbiting" to a figure on the Roche Limit page four times in one 24-hour period, at 21:53, 2 September 2004, 22:10, 2 September 2004, 08:46, 3 September 2004, and 16:50, 3 September 2004. I followed the 3RR and waited, posting to discussion, before reverting a fourth time at 02:04, 5 September 2004. A third party, P3d0, requested that we both stop the revert war at 02:27, 5 September 2004. William M. Connolley then ignored this request and reverted a fifth time at 09:40, 5 September 2004. Rather than defend his view in talk thereafter, as would be appropriate under the circumstances, he simply stopped responding on the talk page after a web reference to the original source was found and quoted on the archived discussion page at 16:56, 8 September 2004. Both the page and the talk page were dormant after my post to the talk page from 9 September to 12 October 2004, in spite of the assurance that the dispute would be resolved in discussion- much to my frustration. As (unlike him) I honored the cease reversion request, the page was to his liking and so he felt no need to justify his actions on the talk page. He violated the 3RR rule, then he violated a cease reversion request, and he didn't even bother to respond on talk about the subject. --Noren 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note - I belive this vote to be after the closing period. However, I'll answer anyway. Firstly, Noren is mistaken: I was *removing* the word orbiting, not adding it [41]. Second, the Roche limit exists independently of whether the body was orbiting or not. Thirdly, Noren broke good faith by reverting [42] with "revert vandalism". Fourthly, I discussed all this extensively at the time [43]. Quite why I got bored with Noren I forget. Try reading all the discussion there and see if you get bored too :-). Fifthly, Noren has somehow failed to read 13:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Hello Theresa. Yes we are having an unseemly war over the article you improved so nicely. I won't edit it further until you have had a chance to look at it and comment substantively. Sixthly, I probably broke the 3RR then, for which I apologise. I wouldn't do it now. Note that it was not policy in those far-off days. Sevently, this seems like an awfully long time to hold a grudge. William M. Connolley 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Neutral

  1. I do not have any crank scientific theories I am pushing, and I more-or-less agree with him on global warming. Nonetheless, he reminds me of the recent discussion on wikien-l about the "scientific point of view". I think the opposition posters make some good points. Ruy Lopez 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I have not yet decided how to vote. Dr. Connolley is quite active on Wikipedia. I see on User_talk:William_M._Connolley#adminship he is pondering running for ArbCom [but as you see, I decided against - WMC]. So he is interested in power. Sometimes he doesn't explain his edits very well. Consider the Reddi case, currently under arbitration. Reddi is accused of being insufficiently qualified to add to science articles, which he adds what is deemed pseudoscience. When Reddi attempted to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience, Dr. Connolley repeatedly removed his name without explanation but with only snide comments. It was left to others to explain in a civil manner why Reddi's move was provocative to project members. See also User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Wikiproject to see a response:
    Please DO NOT remove my name again. J. D. Redding 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please don't be silly. You are the psuedoscience problem. William M. Connolley 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
    Here is the history [44] and the discussion page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#WMC's removal of my name He is handling his actions rather clumsily, and leaves it to others in the WikiProject to explain his reasoning. He's been to grad school, he's presumably literate, yet doesn't explain his actions in a civil manner to someone he disagrees with. Now concerning the Reddi arbitration, as he mentions below, Fred Bauder launched a "trial balloon" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika :
    "1) Art Carlson (talk \u2022 contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk \u2022 contribs) shall appoint a third user competent in basic science. These three users shall have the power to ban any user who disrupts the editing of articles which relate to science from those articles which they are disrupting. Should either of them decline to serve, the other shall make two appointments...."
    This is a rather stunning reversal of wiki customs, I think obviously, in the concentration of power. Art Carlson declined. Dr. Connolley loves the idea however. I am skeptical. But as a suggestion of a way to reassure me and others, I suggested that Dr. Connolley pretend he already had this power and explicitly tell us where he would have excercised it, say in the Reddi edits, or others of the past half a year or so. Surely he must have a good idea of what he would do. That way we could all see the wisdom of his decisions. However, he has not taken up the suggestion, (yet). --GangofOne 14:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    To answer the troika first: Art was unenthusiastic, but hasn't actually declined. I didn't "love" it: I said However, I think this would be a major policy step. For the record, I'll accept if its enacted, but other less drastic proposals come to mind: ... then this proposal would give the Troika unprecedented powers and I suspect might well lead to community resistance. In other words, I was cautious. I haven't answered your question there, because I don't know what my answer would be. Note, BTW, that it was me that advertsied the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics & at pseudophysics, because I wanted to get reaction from others who would probably be interested but not otherwise have seen it. To avoid xs here: see my talk page for more.
    As to Reddi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience: he is fully aware that he is regarded as a pusher of pseudoscience. And as you'll notice, his removal was enforced by others. Reddi's attempt to "join" was deliberate mockery. William M. Connolley 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
    Wrong WMC ... I write on protoscience. WikiProject Pseudoscience is not a open NPOV project ... it is to push a SPOV (William doesn't seem to adhere to NPOV, just SPOV). My attempt to "join" was deliberate to keep balance in the project ... but the "members" do not want that. J. D. Redding 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Just so there will be no doubt: I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: I support NPOV. The proto/pseudo dispute belongs elsewhere. And I'm pleased to see that Reddi accepts that the members of the PS proj don't want him in - as I said, its not just me. William M. Connolley 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
  3. Neutral for now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. This user seems to be a very good contributor, and we need more editors who know science well enough to provide reasoned responses to pesudo science. Howver I am concerned with the removal of other people's comments from talk pags, for any reason, and with reversions of edits that provided (or claimed to provide) references for alleged facts. I am not really worried about this user's admin actions, however, and I am not at all bothered by the likelyhood of this user's RfA passing. DES (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you are talking about FZ's comments higher up the page, the "removal of comments" as far as I can tell, either refers to removal of personal attacks or archiving rambling arguments, over at talk:aetherometry
    I was refering to diffs proviced in FZ's comments, yes. I don't really approve of removing even personal attacks (as I have said on the talk page of WP:RPA and i have declined to remove attacks agaisnt myself that compared me unfavoably with those who aided the Nazis in Concentration camps. (That was also over a pseudoscience issue, BTW.) The diffs cited seemd to include removing a good deal more than just "attack" conent, includign removing a compalint about a previous removal. I can understand that some editors are VERY vexing to deal with, but this is not a good idea IMO. DES (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I thought the answer to the 3RR question could have been a bit better, personally. -Splashtalk 00:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This vote was moved to comments section because it is from a non-logged in user: Support enthusiastically. --24.12.29.115 03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What the heck is Special:Contributions/SEWilco about? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Editcount box

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. The climate change pages are often controversial and suffer vandalism: being an admin would ease the task of keeping this in check (and because it came up last time, let me re-emphasise that I have no intention of using admin powers to settle content disputes on these pages). Other than that, I'm not expecting to be particularly active, though as time progresses I expect to ease my way into other admin chores.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've contributed heavily to global warming and related articles. From a scientific viewpoint, many of these are now good. There are, sadly, still flow-of-prose problems with them, though - I think I have to recognise that while I'm happy adding science, beautiful prose is not my forte. Less controversially, I'm proud of my three feautured pictures and a number of Computer-generated images
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I've been heavily involved with conflicts, in two main areas: global warming (see-also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2) and pseudoscience (aetherometry, dynamic theory of gravity, etc). Wiki has some difficulty dealing with these problems (i.e., when people have a very strong and essentially erroneous POV they wish to push, but only a small number of editors are prepared/available to resist; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika for one possible solution). But I've learnt from this that an endless revert war doesn't help; that its necessary to involve other editors and to negotiate. I can certainly claim a familiarity with the mechanism of RFC/RFA which, who knows, might prove useful elsewhere.
To deal with an issue that came up at my previous RFA: at that time, I was under 1RR parole on climate change articles. That parole irked me, though I pretty well stuck to it [45]. But I'm pleased to say that (a) the arbcomm have now revoked it The one revert parole placed upon William M. Connolley was an unnecessary move, and is hereby revoked Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2#Removal_of_the_revert_parole_imposed_on_William_M._Connolley (b) the time limit on it has now expired anyway.
If you'd like a recent example, try Talk:Global_warming#Another_phase_of_tuning....3F.
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. They are fair enough... hold on a bit and I'll answer them. William M. Connolley 15:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)... Done.

[Note: the attentive will notice a distinct similarity between these answers and the previous ones, though I've updated them somewhat William M. Connolley]

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

5. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. Trick questions, eh? On the user page of a new contributor; in the first case one who has made an apparent test edit; in the second one who has made what looks like (repeated?) vandalism. But although I guess these are things that experienced users would do, they are not exclusively admin tasks.
6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I strongly support enforcement of the 3RR (including against myself should it be necessary). In fact I should have added "patrol 3rr page to help enforcing violations where needed" to my what-tasks-would-you-do, above. First time violators get a warning. Experienced people who may be acting in good faith get chance to re-revert themselves (e.g.). Repeat offenders get blocks. If you obey the letter of the law... then its not really my business as an admin. If the behaviour is repeated, then others need to raise it as a user RFC I guess.
7. In your opinion, when would you delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. Except in extreme cases I've come to see AFD as not worth the trouble. So for someonething who was merely not notable I would be unlikely to bother. I really don't see the problem with articles about non-notable things. Where I do object is non-notable things made to seem important - this is the pseudoscience stuff again. But there I would tend to support a redirect to the appropriate bit of real science rather than trouble with afd.
8. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. Ha! Are you thinking of Talk:John Lott? Socks tend to edit one article alone. Quite why they don't have the sense to make a pile of token edits elsewhere I don't know...
9. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. With caution. People tend to cite it to their own ends. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight is particularly important.

The following question is from Darwinek (just in case someone thinks it's one of mine) --Deathphoenix 17:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

10. How do you see Wikipedia in 2010 ?
Bonk. This question is an imponderable . Are you expecting super-powers of an editor? Either way, the answer to questions of this ilk is fraught with expectations that possible future admins possess a crystal ball. Might I ask the questioner to retract the question? Or is the questioner attempting to size up the prospects of the bet between Mike Godwin and Eric Goldman? Or is this a question better put to the Wikipedia:Reference Desk? --Ancheta Wis 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Calm down, awright?! That was only a funny question with intention to cheer this serious atmosphere here. I am in full support of William's adminship and this won't change in 2010. Be cheerful and spread WikiLove. - Darwinek 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say some of that in my answer, but I did have some other things to say too. I will say them in a bit, too. Don't delete the question! William M. Connolley 17:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
11 I would like to ask the candidate's view on Wikipedia:Process is Important? DES (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Having read PiI, I agree in principle, process is indeed important; without it we have anarchy. Which is why we have RFA rather than special creation... the balance between process and boldness is the difficult part. I think that document overstates the "emergency" needed to override process; there are occaisions when overriding process will be more trouble than its worth; there are occaisions when it will save a deal of time and trouble. Its telling them apart thats tricky. As a new admin, I'd tend to err on the process side. The arbcomm has to be somewhat freer. William M. Connolley 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_William_M._Connolley_2_1322.html"