Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Accusations

Elle has made serious accusations against some who voted oppose, as well as an attack by association. People are free to oppose and this should be respected. Everyone who oppose has his/her reasons, when you vote for a government, your votes are not dismissed on the bases that the arguments that justifies your vote are weak.

One of the oppositions of William M. Connolley adminship sounds serious enough to request documentation (being the deletion of materials from talkpages), and since the vote section has become a mess, I am requesting it here. And I think those issues should be addressed here and not the main vote section.

What is the issues with William M. Connolley(backing it up with diff.)??? Fad (ix) 07:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when one votes, one gains suffrage on the basis on citizenship. FrankZappo only joined just to push his POV on the aetherometry article, and nothing else. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that a voter should have contributed before voting. But you can not dismiss a vote, simply because the one that has placed the vote happens to have participated in a controversial article. Citizenship is not dismissed on the basis, that the person that decided to have it, had this citizenship for other reasons than the love for the country. Fad (ix) 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I've removed (some; not many; his repeatedly deleted their posts in Talk pages (yes, he does this a lot) is wrong) personal insults from FrankZappo on the aetherometry talk page. Wiki has a no-personal-insults policy, but its very poorly enforced. William M. Connolley 10:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

WMC, look at my oppose vote. How is saying he doesn't like you a personal insult? Pgio 10:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read the edit and the context. William M. Connolley 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've read it, man. I'm really curious why you would leave in material that suggests 'there is no such person as Connolley' and try to edit out someone's dislike as an insult. I mean, call your therapist or something. Pgio 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean, call your therapist or something. Might be considered as an insult. Fad (ix) 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls mate. — Dunc|☺ 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to defend yourself to a request to document accusations, before the documentation is made. You are obviously a contributor to articles, which is nearly a must for me to support someone. I just thought that the accusation about the deletion of talkpage materials was serious enought for an oppose vote, if ever this is really true. There is no question that if you removed personal attacks or stuff that are unrelated with the subject of the article, you should not be blammed for it. I just want those having accused you, to present evidences of a recent misconduct, from materials dating AFTER your first nommination that will justify an oppose vote. And from what I've seen, the only serious accusation would be the deletion of talk page material for POV reasons. Fad (ix) 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is one example of a WMC talk page deletion [1]. He also had an image deleted from a talk page which showed he was a deliberate liar (see below). You can call the first example deleting a personal attack if you like but it was in the context of his missing the word "cosine" 12 times in a linked blog thread (a blog he insists on quoting in another article) and his previous deliberate failure to spot °C on a graph[2] despite being asked explicitly about it three times, and not admitting the point until having it rammed down his throat. He then proceeded to stop other people looking at the evidence that he was wilfully selective in in eyesight (that his lies, if you prefer) by having the chart in question in the talk page deleted as a possible copyright violation by ignoring the WMO's policy on sharing information (it would have been fair use anyway). --Facethefacts 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's called deleting personal attacks and it is a good thing. Guettarda 01:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose your strength of feeling on personal attacks is why you wrote [3] just now. --Facethefacts 06:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

Is there any technical reason not to split the page into subsections? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mainstream's POV, is not Neutral, just popular. (please dear people, read a tad bit of history about unchecked "Democracy")

Hello Stephan Schulz, I think you've mastered the art of seeing the conflict! That "mainstream scientific OPINION" adequately appear on a page, self admittedly describing material which has a differing opinion from the mainstream. Some people simply do not understand the point of needlessly mashing together such an obvious difference of opinion in order to end up with nothing. Which is what this project is becoming with lighting quick speed. Nothing.

The material was knowingly uploaded in order to donate it to this encyclopedia. An article describing Aetherometry (not an article based of the theories used to formulate Big Bang and Einstine SR), was offered to this "encyclopedia", by people who appeared to knew something about it. It began, and was quickly acknowledged, as not following more acceptable style norms. I'll venture a reasonable guess, that more than a half a million words were wasted within months trying to find some way to rewrite the material so as to simply sound less 'confidant', yet retain some semblance of an accurate description of what hundreds of years of cumulative scientific exploration has produced on the subject.

William, along with a veritable MOB of people who feel as he does, have been dedicated to not only suppressing material offered, in any form, but have circled the wagons in order to "assure", "and protect" the casual public reader that Aetheometry is NOTHING MORE THAN "twaddle", "bullocks", "fake", "Pseudo" on and on and on. Worse, if you can believe this part, worse is that he can't even fathom the idea of an article divided into two section, one simply allowing its supporters to describe what they think Aetheometry is, while Willy has been offered repeatedly to create his own "Critics" section. What the fuck more could we ask for? Dumb question, we "know" it's "twaddle", because unscientific consciences told us so, thus no need to allow ANY accurately descriptive article about it. "It's "twaddle, doesn't matter what the article says, because it's all twaddle".

The towering foolishness of "Dr." Connolly, is his lack of humility. He might be right about all his conclusions on Climate Modeling, Plasma and Electrical Cosmology, Coriolis Effect, Aetherometry, and the long gammet.... but he could be wrong, and will never admit even that. If he could, he'd give dissident science the respectful critiques THEY DESERVE while helping them build articles that accurately portray how exactly they differ from Main Stream understandings.

Mind you, we're not talking about each and every ten cent theory that people have come up with.... Plasma and Electrical Cosmology has a great many professionals exploring the material. Cleonis material on corriolis, write or wrong, was a stunningly beautiful attempt at offering this encyclopedia, FOR FREE, new and inspiring ways of seeing things. Aetherometry is a deep collection of pre-standing text (long predating the internet for C's sake), I was stunned to see the very people who have dedicated so many years of open-minded exploration, at great expense to themselves, offering so much to this wiki FOR FREE. People who have been WISE in their free choice, not to shove difficult questions down the throats of SR and Big Bang "BELIEVERS". But not asking the question, does not mean it's not waiting somewhere. Aethorometry or not, Dr. Connoly, you've got some very tough questions ahead on your horizon, questions challenging the formulas employed by YOUR Climate Modeling (a pseudoscience), questions that will not soon go away.

As to the 120+ "supporters" of William, I'm sure they harbor admiration for him. I'm sure they've all had passable experience with him and haven't found the need, or possessed the background, to challenge him on basic premisses. More distasteful and something few would be willing to admit, is the dynamic of being "swept away" with enchantment. Enchanted with the image William has presented of himself. "Climate Modeler" (a "pop" science if you didn't know) and as popular and prominent Climate Modeling conclusions are right now, William looks like he's not about to waste his POLITICAL capital telling us what, and what not, to READ.

I was enchanted with the "promise" of this wiki...... I was wrong about a great many things. I was most wrong, thinking that people could actually put aside their dogma, and allow a collection of material to organize through hyper-links, where an innocent could come and learn how to make up their own mind. TTLightningRod 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi TTLightningRod! You've written a rather longish piece touching several interesting topic. Unfortunately, I'm busy with real live before leaving for travel later this day. Just a short note. It is, perhaps, a common misconception that the scientific consensus is arrived at by scientists somehow "voting" (implicit or explicit) for any one opinion. Our current scientific (mainstream) model of the world is a breathtakingy beautiful framework of different, but interconnected theories, all bracing each other, all receiving support from each other and from countless observations. This framework is extremely robust. It is incomplete, of course, and scientists argue a lot about the new areas where we add knowledge, and where it is not yet clear how the pieces fit together. But the core is as solid as anything can be. People who know enough about science and the scientific method recognize this. The standard model is not the standard model because scientists support it. Scientists support it because they recognize the overwhelming support for it. Aetherometry is not science. It is junk at best, more likely a con job. I know this as surely as I know that the sun will rise tomorrow (well, given our current weather, will rise somewhere ;-). Explaining why I know this essentially requires the communication of large parts of my scientific knowledge. I'm trying to do this (in fact, I sometimes get paid to teach parts of it to students), but doing it is hard, time-consuming, and usually requires the active participation of others. It very often is not feasible in the context of Wikipedia. We know this. That's why we have a policy that says that the mainstream scientific opinion should be most prominent. --Stephan Schulz 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
How about this, oh dear learned man. If it IS a "con-job", wouldn't it have been soooo cool if the con-artists would have placed into the wiki, the "precise details of there elaborate con" so that honesty heros like yourself could point to the incriminating evidence.
The only con here I'm seeing (now I could be wrong) is you and your buddies like Willy, who tell us things like I know something because I know something, but shucks, to explaining why I know this essentially requires the communication of large parts of my scientific knowledge. (oh ya, and let me drop the little hint that I'm trustworthy, because you see, I've been paid to teach people, and the train leaves any minute, so no time to tell you more about how much I know) so you'll just have to take my word for it, again because trust me, I know, that this material over here.... is junk.... but certainly all the stuff in MY head, which I simply have no time to pass to you, (and passing to you would probably just be a waist of my precious time, because see, you've already been tempted by things I know are wrong, and I'm right about this)... but I digress... Anyway my dear boy who brings up several interesting topics, but my real life prevents me from really addressing any of that, so instead, I open and close by just telling you softly again and again, that I know, and you should trust me because I know I know.... that the mainstream is right, not because people say it is, but because right things actually gravitated to the mainstream, and the breathtaking beauty of this framework is self-perpetuating, thus robust, thus right, not wrong, but right, because see, simply, I know it couldn't be wrong. I think I understand you now... difficult, but I do the best I can... TTLightningRod 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad you got it. --Stephan Schulz 18:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I too am very glad to know who you are. TTLightningRod 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generating untenable contention, through the "drawing first blood".

"I'm sorry to say I hadn't realised quite how much this stuff had lengthened out." William M. Connolley 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

It's long because some people pretend to forget about their extensive role in generating conflict. I say "pretend", because it's difficult to swallow that a person does not utilize such selective memory without intention. Therefor, you force me to accuse you, Dr William M. Connolley, of being a most dishonorable person, for you pass lies. TTLightningRod 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the Aetherometry material was offered to Wikipedia, it did exist in a (relative to the mainstream) smallish and eclectic group, but no one upon this Earth was prevented from looking at it. However, it contently existed in this relative obscurity, and was commonly 'discounted' by most who might happen upon it, most likely by the very first syllable of its subject title, "Aether".

The enthusiasts who discussed it in simple obscurity, knew full well the controversial direction of debating with mainstream understandings. Worse, the very material opens by questioning some of the most fundamental stones which support huge sections of intricately interwoven fields of study in the mainstream. Foundations stones which are undeniably needed as starting points, but also, undeniably predicated upon premise/supposition/premise. The larger and more intricately woven the upper fields, the more threatening it is to chip at the lower, let alone the audacity of questioning the unquestionable. Questioning likable people, like Einstein, or questioning the energy source of one-way gravitational attraction. One would be mistaken to assume that the Mainstream Scientific community is truly open to having these questions raised, again and again. They very much like to consider these items as settled, if not, then "the mainstream alone reserves the right to ponder them".

The introduction of this material into Wikipeda, in good faith, proved to be a monstrous debacle in the face of extraordinary opposition to something carrying a great negative stigma in its first syllable.

I'll state again, and until I'm blue in the face, that I have no opinion as to the validity nor strength of the concepts held by Aetherometry, but I AM certain of two very simple things; That the people who talk about it, have every right to, and that people who want to hear them talk about it, have every right to. (Therefor, all such voluminous material is deserving of an accurate encyclopedia entry, faithfully portraying the subject as it sees itself. Who would disagree?)

This in no way implies that Aetherometry should be insulated from critique. However it is not right, that mere slander and liable should be allowed to parade as "constructive criticism".

I have not read one single word, from the proponents of that material, suggesting they are unwilling to hear, consider, and respond to any and all questions (honestly posed) pertaining directly to the theoretical, mathematical, and experimental work undertaken. A willingness to have the material examined in the most minute detail. A characteristic for a dissident science, not as common as one would think. And a characteristic disturbingly uncommon for the intricately interwoven mainstream sciences, super-funded science that most laymen hold in mouth agape awe. The most common retort, one most of us have used it in at least one period in our lives, "how could so much money, be wrong?" To that I can only say, listen more closely to the echo of history.

Inversely, Aetherometry "opponents" have spent the preponderance of their time there, categorizing the entirety of the material as flat out "false" "pseudo", and most despicable of all, as an elaborate "confidence trick" and "con-job". The last example, was one of the first accusations posed by the "opposition"...... yet not once, have any of the accusers offered a single piece of evidence, let alone site a reference, nor produce one singe victim who has lost money or prestige by speaking about, or in favor of, Aetherometry.

That was first blood..... and continues to this day. Candidate for Admin tools WMC, does not discourage this behavior, in fact, he commonly leads it.

It could be wrong science, it could be impossible science, it could very well be nothing better than the current mass consensus holding up the Big Bang, Special Relativity, or gravity dominated celestial mechanics..... but Aetherometry is not deserving of slander and liable in the absence of proof that at least one person has been conned or injured by examining the material.

Ask this candidate once again; Will he defend the rights and necessity of dissident science to exist, with the same zeal and vigor he uses to uphold his mainstream understandings?

TTLightningRod 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very happy with "dissident" science (though I doubt I'd use the same words) getting a fair share of article space, in approximate ratio of its popularity, in accord with NPOV policy. What I strongly oppose is non-science/pseudo-science passing itself off as science. Aetherometry simply isn't science, any more than Creationism is science. Its cargo cult science: they've lit fires around a "runway", built a bamboo "control tower", but still the planes don't land to discharge the cargo, because they've missed the essentials. William M. Connolley 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
Please be accurate, "the essentials as I understand them". Man, if you could just add the little phase to the things you say, just once and awhile.
Yes, we already know you wouldn't use the same words, you have an entire vocabulary specially selected for describing things you don't agree with. But if I may, do you really feel so strongly that you have cornered the market on enlightenment, with a clairvoyance to know. To have the extraordinary power of such perfect vision, able to see through to the core of our Earth and Sun? To know, without a shadow of doubt, that all electrical discharge in our atmosphere is merely the product of static buildup? That SR (Special Relativity) need not be looked into further since Einstein pulled it out of his cute little butt?
See, I so wish you could with that perfect vision of yours, that the difference I begging you to acknowledge here, is that I admit I do not know everything with such certainty, where you seem to impolitely stomp around telling me that your falsification by edict should suffice alone.
I say such material should be given the opportunity to present itself faithfully (right or wrong), viewed by all, and left to be studied as either example. (the same way people like me, leave Climate Modeling and Big Bang material alone) I seem to have the impression, that you, soon to be amplified with your new Admin tools, will cut to the chase, mock it yourself, and stamp it with a seal of "no need to look here, it's just twaddle"
Now I could be wrong.... yet I strongly suspect that you still feel right. TTLightningRod 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the same old stuff all over again. But (apart from being hopelessly wrong) the problem with it is that its all besides the point: these are all content questions, and have nothing to do with reverting vandalism, 3RR, page moves or any of the other admin functions. William M. Connolley 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
So you're basically telling me that I'm (apart from being hopelessly wrong), at least wrong that Admin Willy will have no additional clout (actual nor implied) to throw his POV around covertly, when he's not overtly over-lording material which runs counter to his acceptable content. Ya, the Wurlitzer just keeps spinning here at Project Wikipedia.... and so do you Willy. Please, permanently block my User Account as your first act in office <Personal attacks removed. Dragons flight 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)> TTLightningRod 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Adding new personal attack in place of the last one that was removed "for the safety or the dear readers eyes".... For Doctor William M. Connolley is <personal attacks removed. Dragons flight 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)>, so no point in telling him where to go. I expect he'll remain right here in Wikipedia..... and that's why I won't. This user and IP should be permanently banned from even viewing Wikipedia... for ever more. TTLightningRod 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the way you remove personal attacks, Dragons flight. Much better than removing the whole paragraph, preventing the reader from even knowing there was a comment. If Dr. Connelley promises to be as fastidious when he removes personal attacks, then I will not vote against him. GangofOne 16:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The joke's on me. Looks like voting ended an hour ago. "ending 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)" GangofOne 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You know what the saddest, funniest thing about all this is, WMC? Of all people involved, you are best positioned to actually USE what the Correas have discovered. Profound insight into the energy structure, functions, and inputs of the atmosphere could only help build better models. Pgio 08:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You misspelled "claimed to have discovered, but have not managed to convince any semi-qualified scientist about". --Stephan Schulz 08:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_adminship_William_M._Connolley_2_d8fd.html"