Let the games begin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley. (Please indicate whether you are willing to accept the nom and answer the three questions). Guettarda 7 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
Just to let you know, it is generally considered much better there to not refute every oppose vote. I know that's not easy, but it is better to use the comments section to discuss any innaccuracies in people's vote comments. If you refute every oppose vote, many people think it looks belligerant and that tends to reflect badly on you. So it is better to comment in the comment section and let the votes fall where they may. It looks like you'll do fine. - Taxman July 8, 2005 14:40 (UTC)
Final (67/29/5) ending 13:48 14 July 2005 (UTC)
No consensus. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
See talk.
William is an extremely polite, helpful and knowledgeable editor. He has been here since February 2003 and has accumulated over 7200 edits. William is a climate modeller and contributes primarily to those areas in which he can claim expert knowledge - global climate and physics, and he has worked hard to substantially improve these articles. This has brought him into conflict with other editors - conflicts which have resulted in an RFC and an RFAr - but despite repeated personal attacks from other editors, William has shown himself to be cool under fire and emerged from both of these disputes looking like someone who would make an excellent admin. William works well with other editors and makes extensive use of edit summaries. He works hard to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia by keeping its content in line with established scientific ideas - be it in the area of climate change or aetherometry. I have no hesitation in nominating William for adminship. Guettarda 7 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
I am inclined to support. Although I didn't read the climate controversies. I suspect I've been involved in some parallel kinds of arguments. The challenge in presenting a controversial scientific topic for an encyclopedia is to be able to present the critics' or opponents' arguments so that a reader will understand why there is actually a controversy. Can you show me a couple of examples where you have done this? If so, I will enthusiastically support. alteripse 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:00, 28 July 2005 216.254.166.168 (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit |
Current revision Dragons flight (Talk | contribs) rv, this has been over for several weeks. |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
#'''Support'''. A polite editor who continues to make good use of edit summaries and respects the 3RR. I don't there will be abuse, in any case. -- [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] 06:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Support'''. A polite editor who continues to make good use of edit summaries and respects the 3RR. I don't there will be abuse, in any case. -- [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] 06:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:For the sake of accuracy, it must be mentioned that WMC has been blocked for 3RR violations 4 times in the past 3 months [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWilliam_M._Connolley]. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 14:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #:For the sake of accuracy, it must be mentioned that WMC has been blocked for 3RR violations 4 times in the past 3 months [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWilliam_M._Connolley]. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 14:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #*That's not counting the number of violations that he and his tag-team (PJacobi, Guettarda, Mel Etitis, Natalinasmpf, etc) committ together, or the deletions of other peoples Talk contributions, of his slander of other researchers, and so on. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support'''. Carbonite's point, above, doesn't sway me because on a couple of occasions Connolley was consciously trying to avoid the 3RR. Some of the reasons given below for opposing his candidacy — well, they either puzzle or disappoint me. That some may consider his user-page a "vanity" page is just silly. People put all sorts of things on their user pages, and shouldn't be limited to pictures of dogs and quotes from Hermann Hesse or Buckminster Fuller. More importantly, Connolley did not come to Wikipedia in order to promote himself (e.g. through his user page); he has been an active contributor to articles covering topics he has knowledge of. Isn't this the character of the ideal wikipedian? Has he been in edit-disputes? How many people here have not? I actually think there is something at stake here. We all want wikipedia to be open to all users, meaning, one need not have a PhD. in anthropology to write on an anthropological topic. No one has ever disputed this. But some people interpret this to mean that people who actually have demonstrable knowledge of an area should somehow be penalized for contributing to Wikipedia. My vote is not only ''for'' Connolley, it is ''against'' those people who hate having their cherished views challenged by someone who knows more than they do. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Support'''. Carbonite's point, above, doesn't sway me because on a couple of occasions Connolley was consciously trying to avoid the 3RR. Some of the reasons given below for opposing his candidacy — well, they either puzzle or disappoint me. That some may consider his user-page a "vanity" page is just silly. People put all sorts of things on their user pages, and shouldn't be limited to pictures of dogs and quotes from Hermann Hesse or Buckminster Fuller. More importantly, Connolley did not come to Wikipedia in order to promote himself (e.g. through his user page); he has been an active contributor to articles covering topics he has knowledge of. Isn't this the character of the ideal wikipedian? Has he been in edit-disputes? How many people here have not? I actually think there is something at stake here. We all want wikipedia to be open to all users, meaning, one need not have a PhD. in anthropology to write on an anthropological topic. No one has ever disputed this. But some people interpret this to mean that people who actually have demonstrable knowledge of an area should somehow be penalized for contributing to Wikipedia. My vote is not only ''for'' Connolley, it is ''against'' those people who hate having their cherished views challenged by someone who knows more than they do. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #* That's just the problem: William Michael Connolley challenges plenty of people and topics that he knows nothing about. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:Just to clarify, the allegations of vanity (which are completely unfounded) were made with regards to the [[William Connolley]] article, not WMC's user-page.--[[Image:Australia flag large.png|15px]] [[User:Cyberjunkie|<font color="green"><b>Cyberjunkie</b></font>]] [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|<sup><b style="font-size:74%;"><font color="gold">TALK</font></sup>]] 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #:Just to clarify, the allegations of vanity (which are completely unfounded) were made with regards to the [[William Connolley]] article, not WMC's user-page.--[[Image:Australia flag large.png|15px]] [[User:Cyberjunkie|<font color="green"><b>Cyberjunkie</b></font>]] [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|<sup><b style="font-size:74%;"><font color="gold">TALK</font></sup>]] 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:::Thanks for the clarification.[[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #:::Thanks for the clarification.[[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
Line 104: | Line 102: | ||
#** Well this gets even more bizarre. So, it was created by Ed Poor, who is already an admin and ought to have known better, about his mate with whom he was edit warring. Still, presumably to make some point. I agree with William's position on GEC. Nevertheless, I still think William ought to have shown a little more humility, and don't think he should be promoted. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) | #** Well this gets even more bizarre. So, it was created by Ed Poor, who is already an admin and ought to have known better, about his mate with whom he was edit warring. Still, presumably to make some point. I agree with William's position on GEC. Nevertheless, I still think William ought to have shown a little more humility, and don't think he should be promoted. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) | ||
#::''(After edit conflict.)'' I agree that it's not a good reason for opposing, even apart from W.M.C.'s response. A number of Wikipedians are the subjects of articles, and I don't see anything non-Wikiquette in that. Moreover W.M.C. is well-known outside Wikipedia, and to call the article vanity would be difficult to defend. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC) | #::''(After edit conflict.)'' I agree that it's not a good reason for opposing, even apart from W.M.C.'s response. A number of Wikipedians are the subjects of articles, and I don't see anything non-Wikiquette in that. Moreover W.M.C. is well-known outside Wikipedia, and to call the article vanity would be difficult to defend. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC) | ||
- | #** It is a vanity page where he entitles himself to a degree that he has acknowledged not to have. Mr. William Michael Connolley has another virtue - he is quick on the trigger in judging issues that he, in fact and in his own admission, knows nothing about. So his wars are quixotic and he can only win them by making deletions of the interventions of his opponents, and by falsifying subject-matter. Hardly the characteristics of a scientist, but maybe the desired characteristics for a cyberbureaucrat. [[User:216.254.161.198|216.254.161.198]] 17:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#* The fact that I can be friends with someone I disagree with, is perhaps to my credit, but that doesn't mean Connolley is capable of upholding the [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] policy of this web site. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 17:20 (UTC) | #* The fact that I can be friends with someone I disagree with, is perhaps to my credit, but that doesn't mean Connolley is capable of upholding the [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] policy of this web site. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 17:20 (UTC) | ||
# '''Oppose''' because he allows his POV to damage Wikipedia. There will be fewer limits on his behavior, as a minimum on his shown reversion behavior.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#Temporary_injunction] He deletes material which conflicts with his beliefs and participates in ad hominem attacks. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Statement_of_the_dispute] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Statement_of_the_dispute] As he mentioned, he is currently slashing [[Global warming]] and removing material which contradicts his beliefs. For example, over an hour ago he cut two paragraphs about problems 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."''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&curid=12399&diff=18347649&oldid=18347434] but he failed to move the paragraphs to the GCM article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=18352003&oldid=16051489] He has used the same burn-instead-of-move method before. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)) | # '''Oppose''' because he allows his POV to damage Wikipedia. There will be fewer limits on his behavior, as a minimum on his shown reversion behavior.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#Temporary_injunction] He deletes material which conflicts with his beliefs and participates in ad hominem attacks. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Statement_of_the_dispute] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Statement_of_the_dispute] As he mentioned, he is currently slashing [[Global warming]] and removing material which contradicts his beliefs. For example, over an hour ago he cut two paragraphs about problems 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."''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&curid=12399&diff=18347649&oldid=18347434] but he failed to move the paragraphs to the GCM article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=18352003&oldid=16051489] He has used the same burn-instead-of-move method before. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)) | ||
- | * Second that. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#: SEW is too modest. He neglects to mention his own extensive participation in the RFA [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Scot_E._Wilcoxon|here]]. I strongly resent ''There will be fewer limits on his behavior'': as I've specifically indicated in my response to DF's question, I have no intention of using admin powers for winning disputes on the GW pages. As for his complaints... as he is obliged to admit, I specifically marked that edit as controversial, to alert people to the need to review it. And note that SEW appears to agree with my edit, in that he has moved the text into [[climate model]] rather than arguing for its re-insertion into GW. I could go on, but its clear that I will never be loved by the skeptics. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-07 22:13:33 (UTC). | #: SEW is too modest. He neglects to mention his own extensive participation in the RFA [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Scot_E._Wilcoxon|here]]. I strongly resent ''There will be fewer limits on his behavior'': as I've specifically indicated in my response to DF's question, I have no intention of using admin powers for winning disputes on the GW pages. As for his complaints... as he is obliged to admit, I specifically marked that edit as controversial, to alert people to the need to review it. And note that SEW appears to agree with my edit, in that he has moved the text into [[climate model]] rather than arguing for its re-insertion into GW. I could go on, but its clear that I will never be loved by the skeptics. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-07 22:13:33 (UTC). | ||
#:: WMC interprets as approval of his behavior the preservation of text in a random place, rather than its being replaced where he flung it from. I haven't tried to interpret the details of his thrashing in [[Global warming]], much less approve anything. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)) | #:: WMC interprets as approval of his behavior the preservation of text in a random place, rather than its being replaced where he flung it from. I haven't tried to interpret the details of his thrashing in [[Global warming]], much less approve anything. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)) | ||
#I agree with many of Ed Poor's points [Note: now in the neutral section, below]. In short, although I think WMC is an excellent editor, there's far too much conflict surrounding him. Looking over his recent contributions, there are numerous reverts, accusations of POV or "junk science", and rather snide edit summaries. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC) | #I agree with many of Ed Poor's points [Note: now in the neutral section, below]. In short, although I think WMC is an excellent editor, there's far too much conflict surrounding him. Looking over his recent contributions, there are numerous reverts, accusations of POV or "junk science", and rather snide edit summaries. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC) | ||
- | #* The problem is not the conflict surrounding him; that would be fine if he was accurate and respectful of facts. The problem is that he is dogmatic and has zero respect for facts and records. Nor does he make any attempts to understand subject-matter before coming out with his inquisitorial judgements. The man does not even have the fair-play of a true scientist. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#Strong oppose. WMC is rude, condescending, shows no respect for NPOV, and has demonstrated no desire or ability to cooperate with others to build a neutral encyclopedia reflecting various perspectives. He is one of the worst candidates I could imagine for adminship. He is already on a revert parole (a fairly mild treatment, considering the events) for these behaviors, and you want to give him adminship? [[User:Cortonin|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Cortonin|Cortonin]] | [[User talk:Cortonin|Talk]] 9 July 2005 07:13 (UTC) | #Strong oppose. WMC is rude, condescending, shows no respect for NPOV, and has demonstrated no desire or ability to cooperate with others to build a neutral encyclopedia reflecting various perspectives. He is one of the worst candidates I could imagine for adminship. He is already on a revert parole (a fairly mild treatment, considering the events) for these behaviors, and you want to give him adminship? [[User:Cortonin|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Cortonin|Cortonin]] | [[User talk:Cortonin|Talk]] 9 July 2005 07:13 (UTC) | ||
- | #* Yes, rude and arrogant and ignorant and vain. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
# Oppose, does not support NPOV. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] July 9, 2005 13:23 (UTC) | # Oppose, does not support NPOV. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] July 9, 2005 13:23 (UTC) | ||
#: The arbcomm disagrees with you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley.27s_objections_to_NPOV] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-09 18:56:52 (UTC) | #: The arbcomm disagrees with you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley.27s_objections_to_NPOV] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-09 18:56:52 (UTC) | ||
Line 120: | Line 114: | ||
# '''Oppose''' edits too much in the area in which he is professionally involved - i.e. issues around original research. If most of his substantial editing was in neutrally reporting/expounding the views of people other than himself as to what matters are on subjects other than the ones in which he has a professional/ideological involvement, I would have no objection. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 20:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | # '''Oppose''' edits too much in the area in which he is professionally involved - i.e. issues around original research. If most of his substantial editing was in neutrally reporting/expounding the views of people other than himself as to what matters are on subjects other than the ones in which he has a professional/ideological involvement, I would have no objection. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 20:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:It isn't "original research" if you have published it elsewhere. Experts getting involved in subjects of which they are experts is ''good'' for Wikipedia and helps our credibility immensely. Our credibility ishurt by the perception that we are all just a bunch of rank amateurs who don't know what we are talking about. Apart from the fact that this has little to do with WMC's ability to serve as an admin, it's extremely disturbing that expertice should be held ''against'' a person. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #:It isn't "original research" if you have published it elsewhere. Experts getting involved in subjects of which they are experts is ''good'' for Wikipedia and helps our credibility immensely. Our credibility ishurt by the perception that we are all just a bunch of rank amateurs who don't know what we are talking about. Apart from the fact that this has little to do with WMC's ability to serve as an admin, it's extremely disturbing that expertice should be held ''against'' a person. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #* William M. Connolley is good at holding on to his expertise but discarding anyone else's that he has apriori decided is not to his liking. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#::I am unwilling to trust someone with adminship if they are liable to work in areas where they have strong views. I prefer people who are extremely clearly neutral. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #::I am unwilling to trust someone with adminship if they are liable to work in areas where they have strong views. I prefer people who are extremely clearly neutral. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:::While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I find it disturbing that you would express opposition on the grounds that WMC knows what he is talking about. Having strong views on keeping information in Wikipedia ''accurate'' is to be commended, not criticised. Do you avoid editing article about comparative linguistics on the grounds that you are too close to the subject? Your edit history suggests otherwise. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #:::While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I find it disturbing that you would express opposition on the grounds that WMC knows what he is talking about. Having strong views on keeping information in Wikipedia ''accurate'' is to be commended, not criticised. Do you avoid editing article about comparative linguistics on the grounds that you are too close to the subject? Your edit history suggests otherwise. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#::::Guettarda, don't get so worked up. I think this was meant as satire. Right? [[User:Derex|Derex]] 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | #::::Guettarda, don't get so worked up. I think this was meant as satire. Right? [[User:Derex|Derex]] 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #:::::Guettarda is a member of Connolley's cabal; accuracy only matter on their pet-topics. Pet-dislikes are immediately subject to gross falsification. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Facethefacts|Facethefacts]] 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC) See [[Michael Mann (scientist)]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Mann_%28scientist%29&action=history history of that page] and [[Talk:Michael Mann (scientist)]] to see that he aims for censorship. There is every reason to suppose that he would use admin powers to support his POV. (Yes, I am the other side of that edit war with about 15 edits on the article and 15 on the talk page. No, I don't like signing in.) | #'''Oppose''' [[User:Facethefacts|Facethefacts]] 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC) See [[Michael Mann (scientist)]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Mann_%28scientist%29&action=history history of that page] and [[Talk:Michael Mann (scientist)]] to see that he aims for censorship. There is every reason to suppose that he would use admin powers to support his POV. (Yes, I am the other side of that edit war with about 15 edits on the article and 15 on the talk page. No, I don't like signing in.) | ||
#:Note, this editor's first edit was on July 9 with only four edits prior to this vote[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Facethefacts]. Two of those edits were to redirect both his user page and talk page to [[Talk:Michael Mann (scientist)]]. Thus, he would appear to be essentially an anonymous editor with questionable motives. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 00:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | #:Note, this editor's first edit was on July 9 with only four edits prior to this vote[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Facethefacts]. Two of those edits were to redirect both his user page and talk page to [[Talk:Michael Mann (scientist)]]. Thus, he would appear to be essentially an anonymous editor with questionable motives. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 00:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#::In fact (if you read what I said above) the first was on 31 May [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Mann_%28scientist%29&diff=next&oldid=14493935] and I had made about 34 edits. But never mind. 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | #::In fact (if you read what I said above) the first was on 31 May [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Mann_%28scientist%29&diff=next&oldid=14493935] and I had made about 34 edits. But never mind. 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #:::Typical Wikipedia cabal cut-down by Vsmith: these are the jacobin tactics of those supporting more power for aspiring cyberbureaucrat Mr. William Michael Connolley. | ||
#'''Oppose''', unless I misunderstand his RfAr finished about 2-3 weeks ago, and resulted in parole, which period has barely begun. Given the amount of thunder and lightning surrounding the user at present, I think perhaps try again ''after'' the effects of teh RfAr have died away and there's been a period of reasonably equanimous interactions. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''', unless I misunderstand his RfAr finished about 2-3 weeks ago, and resulted in parole, which period has barely begun. Given the amount of thunder and lightning surrounding the user at present, I think perhaps try again ''after'' the effects of teh RfAr have died away and there's been a period of reasonably equanimous interactions. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Still under penalty from the ArbCom. May support once the revert parole ends. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 23:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. Still under penalty from the ArbCom. May support once the revert parole ends. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 23:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. No way should an editor who had to be put under revert parole be given the capability to roll back edits, no matter what he promises. If he had shown the good faith then that it requires to believe him now, he never would have needed the censure in the first place. Among other reasons, as stated. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. No way should an editor who had to be put under revert parole be given the capability to roll back edits, no matter what he promises. If he had shown the good faith then that it requires to believe him now, he never would have needed the censure in the first place. Among other reasons, as stated. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #*Ah, if one counted all the violations of Connolley in the Aetherometry entry and still others, it would be a party. Fortunately for him most users do not give a hoot about policing this Connolley inquisitor. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. The right thing to do while under revert parole would have been to decline the nomination, and ask the nominator to consider it again later. Accepting the nomination shows unwillingness to put one's own interests aside temporarily for the greater good of the project, or oversight of a greater obligation that should be obvious to admin candidates. This is further evidenced by the fact that the RfAr case was primarily about revert warring. Had this been an RfC, I would not feel so strongly about it, because any two editors could then filibuster any potential administrator candidate. But since RfAr cases are much more rare, and accepted RfAr cases are even more rare, the correct path was to decline the nomination. We cannot ''demand'' that admins hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than the general editing public, but I will certainly ''request'' them to do so. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|focused]] 03:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. The right thing to do while under revert parole would have been to decline the nomination, and ask the nominator to consider it again later. Accepting the nomination shows unwillingness to put one's own interests aside temporarily for the greater good of the project, or oversight of a greater obligation that should be obvious to admin candidates. This is further evidenced by the fact that the RfAr case was primarily about revert warring. Had this been an RfC, I would not feel so strongly about it, because any two editors could then filibuster any potential administrator candidate. But since RfAr cases are much more rare, and accepted RfAr cases are even more rare, the correct path was to decline the nomination. We cannot ''demand'' that admins hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than the general editing public, but I will certainly ''request'' them to do so. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|focused]] 03:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' Needs to show more balance. --[[User:Audiovideo|Audiovideo]] 07:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' Needs to show more balance. --[[User:Audiovideo|Audiovideo]] 07:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' If he applies to the ArbCom to have his reverting-rigths restored I will consider (and probably do) support, but giving rollback to a guy under reverting-parole.....well....doesn't matter how great a user he is, that just doesn't sit right with me. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 13:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' If he applies to the ArbCom to have his reverting-rigths restored I will consider (and probably do) support, but giving rollback to a guy under reverting-parole.....well....doesn't matter how great a user he is, that just doesn't sit right with me. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 13:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. WMC certainly looks like a knowledgeable contributor in the area that he edits, but his censure by the Arbcom can't be ignored at this time. His defense on the arbitration page was to go to his credentials, which, though they may uphold the veracity of his edits, do not excuse his violation of revert rules and disregard for wiki procedures. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 14:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. WMC certainly looks like a knowledgeable contributor in the area that he edits, but his censure by the Arbcom can't be ignored at this time. His defense on the arbitration page was to go to his credentials, which, though they may uphold the veracity of his edits, do not excuse his violation of revert rules and disregard for wiki procedures. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 14:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #* A censor, that's how Connolley wins his confrontations. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' I know nothing about this editor's history, as we never frequent the same articles, and I havn't been doing RC patrol recently, and never ran into him there. I understand however, that he is under ArbCom sanction at the moment, so I am forced to vote oppose, I cannot in good concience allow someone currently under sanction to gain adminship.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' I know nothing about this editor's history, as we never frequent the same articles, and I havn't been doing RC patrol recently, and never ran into him there. I understand however, that he is under ArbCom sanction at the moment, so I am forced to vote oppose, I cannot in good concience allow someone currently under sanction to gain adminship.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' I have no particular axe to grind with him on global warming, but 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, [[User:P3d0|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. I do not think that someone who behaves in that manner is an appropriate choice for an administrator role. {{unsigned|User:Noren|22:52, July 11, 2005}} | #'''Oppose''' I have no particular axe to grind with him on global warming, but 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, [[User:P3d0|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. I do not think that someone who behaves in that manner is an appropriate choice for an administrator role. {{unsigned|User:Noren|22:52, July 11, 2005}} | ||
Line 153: | Line 142: | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too. --[[User:R.Koot|R.Koot]] 20:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too. --[[User:R.Koot|R.Koot]] 20:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:Ok, now I am truly baffled. Did I miss the memo? I thought that the whole ''point'' of Wikipedia was to be an encyclopaedia, and that sysop powers were meant to make editing ''easier'' for trusted users? When did actually doing the thing we are ''supposed'' to be doing here become a ''bad thing''? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | #:Ok, now I am truly baffled. Did I miss the memo? I thought that the whole ''point'' of Wikipedia was to be an encyclopaedia, and that sysop powers were meant to make editing ''easier'' for trusted users? When did actually doing the thing we are ''supposed'' to be doing here become a ''bad thing''? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
- | #*Can only hazard a guess: when people like Guettarda and Connolley began treating serious subject-matter with fascist censorship, falsification of facts and defamation galore. Just see the record of Aetherometry and its Talk. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#::Since when is being an active contributor a disqualification for being an admin? As noted above, doesn't this miss the point altogether? Aren't we here to write articles? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | #::Since when is being an active contributor a disqualification for being an admin? As noted above, doesn't this miss the point altogether? Aren't we here to write articles? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#:::You don't need to be an admin to edit. The 'active' implied some irony, because the person in question here has been in edit wars and is currently on probation. --[[User:R.Koot|R.Koot]] 23:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | #:::You don't need to be an admin to edit. The 'active' implied some irony, because the person in question here has been in edit wars and is currently on probation. --[[User:R.Koot|R.Koot]] 23:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
Line 177: | Line 165: | ||
#'''Neutral''' I am not at all leery about his POV. I commend anyone who is willing to push back against pseudoscience and quackery - even if he got some 3RR doing so. If that was his only sin, I'd support without question. That he seems to be willing to edit war over such minutae as to whether dab pages should be case sensitive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=sar&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SAR&action=history] gives me serious pause to question what he would do as an admin. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 8 July 2005 15:56 (UTC) | #'''Neutral''' I am not at all leery about his POV. I commend anyone who is willing to push back against pseudoscience and quackery - even if he got some 3RR doing so. If that was his only sin, I'd support without question. That he seems to be willing to edit war over such minutae as to whether dab pages should be case sensitive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=sar&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SAR&action=history] gives me serious pause to question what he would do as an admin. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 8 July 2005 15:56 (UTC) | ||
#<s>Oppose</s> Neutral. (A) Dr. C. is constantly pushing the United Nations' POV on [[global warming]] while dismissing as "[[pseudoscience]]" all findings which contradict the UN - even those published in peer-reviewed journals. (B) He is perennially in conflict with other editors. (C) He has reverted innumerable changes to climate articles, on the ground that those changes were "vandalism" - simply because he didn't want to allow the [[Wikipedia:POV|POV]] which those changes accurately and fairly to described, to be in the article. Giving him the "rollback" feature, which he intends to use to do this more easily, would not help Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] policy. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still honored by the presence of a ''bona fide'' scientist at Wikipedia, and Dr. C. is much more polite than the average contributor. And I trust him to move or correct my edit comments; I had forgotten how helpful that can be :-) [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 13:56 (UTC) | #<s>Oppose</s> Neutral. (A) Dr. C. is constantly pushing the United Nations' POV on [[global warming]] while dismissing as "[[pseudoscience]]" all findings which contradict the UN - even those published in peer-reviewed journals. (B) He is perennially in conflict with other editors. (C) He has reverted innumerable changes to climate articles, on the ground that those changes were "vandalism" - simply because he didn't want to allow the [[Wikipedia:POV|POV]] which those changes accurately and fairly to described, to be in the article. Giving him the "rollback" feature, which he intends to use to do this more easily, would not help Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] policy. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still honored by the presence of a ''bona fide'' scientist at Wikipedia, and Dr. C. is much more polite than the average contributor. And I trust him to move or correct my edit comments; I had forgotten how helpful that can be :-) [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 13:56 (UTC) | ||
- | #* He may be polite, but he is an underhanded opponent who uses tag-teams and dogmatic statements to push his globalizing agenda. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
#: (A) I regard Eds viewing of the std.consensus as the "UN" position as black helicopters stuff. We disagree on that, of course. I don't think I've ever dismissed any cl ch stuff as psuedoscience, though. Some (S+B; Singer) is definitely junk science, though (B) I edit a lot in the climate change areas, and the psuedoscience areas. These see a lot of POV-pushing, conflict is (sadly) inevitable (C) This is simply wrong. I have never reverted any good faith edits as vandalism (go on, produce one), and haven't used that tag in the edit wars. Asserting that I would use rollback, when I've said very clearly I won't, is rather off, Ed. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-08 14:13:25 (UTC). | #: (A) I regard Eds viewing of the std.consensus as the "UN" position as black helicopters stuff. We disagree on that, of course. I don't think I've ever dismissed any cl ch stuff as psuedoscience, though. Some (S+B; Singer) is definitely junk science, though (B) I edit a lot in the climate change areas, and the psuedoscience areas. These see a lot of POV-pushing, conflict is (sadly) inevitable (C) This is simply wrong. I have never reverted any good faith edits as vandalism (go on, produce one), and haven't used that tag in the edit wars. Asserting that I would use rollback, when I've said very clearly I won't, is rather off, Ed. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-08 14:13:25 (UTC). | ||
#'''Neutral'''. I'm not really convinced his POV is the problem, and he's shown himself to be both qualified and courteous. ''However'', I'm concerned about several things that [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] brought up, and I'm fearful that the nominee is a little too confrontational in his approach (though not combatative!). Given my lack of personal experience with the nom, which is how I would generally resolve my own uncertainty in situations such as these, I'm sitting on the fence here. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 05:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC) | #'''Neutral'''. I'm not really convinced his POV is the problem, and he's shown himself to be both qualified and courteous. ''However'', I'm concerned about several things that [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] brought up, and I'm fearful that the nominee is a little too confrontational in his approach (though not combatative!). Given my lack of personal experience with the nom, which is how I would generally resolve my own uncertainty in situations such as these, I'm sitting on the fence here. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 05:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC) | ||
Line 187: | Line 174: | ||
**Though less relevant to the question, WMC was also the initiator of an earlier [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne|RFAr vs. JonGwynne]]. No actions or findings were taken against WMC. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] July 7, 2005 16:56 (UTC) | **Though less relevant to the question, WMC was also the initiator of an earlier [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne|RFAr vs. JonGwynne]]. No actions or findings were taken against WMC. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] July 7, 2005 16:56 (UTC) | ||
*I'm on the fence about this. While, adminship is "no big deal", it is also at least something more than a pat on the back for frequent contributors. As Guettarda says in his nomination, WMC spends a lot of time trying to confront pseudoscience that others try to introduce into Wikipedia in places like [[global warming]], [[climate change]], [[aetherometry]], [[dynamic theory of gravity]], and [[solar greenhouse (technical)]]. This is a good thing, but it does mean he is involved in far more conflicts that a typical editor. In many cases, he handles this well, but there are also multiple examples of revert wars and 3RR violations (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute/Proposed decision|RFAr findings]]). I worry that WMC may use admin tools or apparent authority as a club in his conflicts. However, if he explains his intentions, and expresses a willingness to avoid using adminship as a weapon in his own conflicts, I am likely to support this nomination. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] July 7, 2005 17:17 (UTC) | *I'm on the fence about this. While, adminship is "no big deal", it is also at least something more than a pat on the back for frequent contributors. As Guettarda says in his nomination, WMC spends a lot of time trying to confront pseudoscience that others try to introduce into Wikipedia in places like [[global warming]], [[climate change]], [[aetherometry]], [[dynamic theory of gravity]], and [[solar greenhouse (technical)]]. This is a good thing, but it does mean he is involved in far more conflicts that a typical editor. In many cases, he handles this well, but there are also multiple examples of revert wars and 3RR violations (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute/Proposed decision|RFAr findings]]). I worry that WMC may use admin tools or apparent authority as a club in his conflicts. However, if he explains his intentions, and expresses a willingness to avoid using adminship as a weapon in his own conflicts, I am likely to support this nomination. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] July 7, 2005 17:17 (UTC) | ||
- | * He does not confront pseudoscience; he smears topics without factual basis; and you have aided and abetted him on this also. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
** I'm aware that admins aren't allowed to use their powers to enforce their edits, and I certainly don't intend to. I'd be particularly careful over the climate change pages. As to 3RR: yes, I've been guilty, though never deliberately. I strongly support the 3RR being strictly enforced for everyone, including me. Happily I seem to have lost the habit of being banned recently and intend to continue that way. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-07 18:13:35 (UTC). | ** I'm aware that admins aren't allowed to use their powers to enforce their edits, and I certainly don't intend to. I'd be particularly careful over the climate change pages. As to 3RR: yes, I've been guilty, though never deliberately. I strongly support the 3RR being strictly enforced for everyone, including me. Happily I seem to have lost the habit of being banned recently and intend to continue that way. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-07 18:13:35 (UTC). | ||
***Based on WMC's comments here and also his specific statement to Ed (above) about not misusing rollback, I am going to change my vote to support. To be honest I do still have some reservations about this because of the way WMC courts conflict; however, in the course of my many dealings with him, I have always seen him to act honestly (even if somewhat stubbornly and aggressively at times). So I have decided to take him at his word that he won't abuse admin priviledges. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] July 8, 2005 18:35 (UTC) | ***Based on WMC's comments here and also his specific statement to Ed (above) about not misusing rollback, I am going to change my vote to support. To be honest I do still have some reservations about this because of the way WMC courts conflict; however, in the course of my many dealings with him, I have always seen him to act honestly (even if somewhat stubbornly and aggressively at times). So I have decided to take him at his word that he won't abuse admin priviledges. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] July 8, 2005 18:35 (UTC) | ||
- | * Of course you'd change your vote. Big surprise... | ||
*It's not true that Dr. Connolley is "cool under fire". More than almost any contributor I can think of, he has engaged in heated [[edit war]]s in the climate articles. If it were not for me carrying him through all this, cooling him down with humor and what Stevertigo calls my "smooth vibe", he'd have been banned long ago. Making him an admin would endorse his flouting of Wikipedia rules. In this special case, it would be a big deal. There are hardly any established scientific ideas which Dr. Connolley keeps Wikipedia in line with, other than minor things like the movement of air (wind) or water (ocean currents). He falsely claims that the United Nations' ideas about [[global warming]] are facts, ignoring all scientific analyses to the contrary. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 14:19 (UTC) | *It's not true that Dr. Connolley is "cool under fire". More than almost any contributor I can think of, he has engaged in heated [[edit war]]s in the climate articles. If it were not for me carrying him through all this, cooling him down with humor and what Stevertigo calls my "smooth vibe", he'd have been banned long ago. Making him an admin would endorse his flouting of Wikipedia rules. In this special case, it would be a big deal. There are hardly any established scientific ideas which Dr. Connolley keeps Wikipedia in line with, other than minor things like the movement of air (wind) or water (ocean currents). He falsely claims that the United Nations' ideas about [[global warming]] are facts, ignoring all scientific analyses to the contrary. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] July 8, 2005 14:19 (UTC) | ||
*Several editors have used the ArbComm decision as grounds to vote against the nomination. This is despite the fact that none of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#Findings_of_Fact|Findings_of_Fact]] found any wrongdoings on the part of WMC. WMC was placed on revert parole in the absence of any findings of fact against him. In addition, the idea that this was simply a revert war between two parties was ''intensified'' by the threat issued by the ArbComm [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=14065112&oldid=14065034] to include other people involved in the edit dispute - this forced other editors to avoid the dispute for fear of being named party to the ArbComm case. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 04:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | *Several editors have used the ArbComm decision as grounds to vote against the nomination. This is despite the fact that none of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#Findings_of_Fact|Findings_of_Fact]] found any wrongdoings on the part of WMC. WMC was placed on revert parole in the absence of any findings of fact against him. In addition, the idea that this was simply a revert war between two parties was ''intensified'' by the threat issued by the ArbComm [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=14065112&oldid=14065034] to include other people involved in the edit dispute - this forced other editors to avoid the dispute for fear of being named party to the ArbComm case. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 04:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
Line 213: | Line 198: | ||
: Apologies - I missed this question. And it turns out to be rather hard for me to answer. I am obliged to offer this excuse: that the skeptics push in the critics views so hard, that I am usually cutting them back, rather than presenting them. It would be nice to be given a chance to present the critics views, but at the moment the skeptics are doing all that is needed and more. I guess I can poin to [[Sallie Baliunas]] (this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sallie_Baliunas&diff=6527124&oldid=5120859]]) and [[Willie Soon]] (this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willie_Soon&oldid=5603711]). [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:49:30, 2005-07-12 (UTC). | : Apologies - I missed this question. And it turns out to be rather hard for me to answer. I am obliged to offer this excuse: that the skeptics push in the critics views so hard, that I am usually cutting them back, rather than presenting them. It would be nice to be given a chance to present the critics views, but at the moment the skeptics are doing all that is needed and more. I guess I can poin to [[Sallie Baliunas]] (this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sallie_Baliunas&diff=6527124&oldid=5120859]]) and [[Willie Soon]] (this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willie_Soon&oldid=5603711]). [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:49:30, 2005-07-12 (UTC). | ||
- | |||
- | * If Wikipedia wants cybercops, Connolley is certainly a candidate. [[User:216.254.166.168|216.254.166.168]] 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance