I don't believe in 3RR, so I'll just put the deleted text here. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 15:52 (UTC)

Repeatedly cut from project page:

(Strikeouts added by Uncle Ed)

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)

1. 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 wars 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.

   Much as I love Ed, I can't agree with this.

2. Making him an admin would endorse his flouting of Wikipedia rules. In this special case, it would be a big deal.

   Of course I disagree (I'm only writing this in case if I left it people might think I agree).

3. 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. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

   Ed: you aren't capable of writing neutrally on climate change. You've said this yourself in the past. You need to accept this, rather than wailing at me. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:16:40 (UTC).

I have occasionally aired some doubts about my ability to write neutrally on climate change, but I have not expressed any final word on the subject. Where I agree with you, is on my inability to produce any comprehensive and neutral climate article by myself. I need your cooperation.

And given a choice between a lousy article, with a full-time professional scientist actively working on it - and a lousy article, created single-handedly by a gifted amateur - well, I think my actions speak for themselves here. I've left climate to you heretofore as the better of two hard alternatives.

Anyway, I'm reconsidering the adminship thing. It might not be connected to climate in the way I think. I pride myself on being open-minded (in the Allen Bloom sense, not the Al Gore sense). I think we can work this out. Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 13:25 (UTC)

This is a special case, for a number of reasons.

1. G has made manifestly false statements. These cannot be allowed to stand, because that would mislead others who "vote" based on his comments.
2. Corrections should go at the top, not buried way down below as if they were mere opinion. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:25 (UTC)

• I waited until it looked like you were done, and you missed a comment in the Oppose section that I added attribution for. This is not a special case, it's just like every other RfAdmin. Also the "corrections" are clearly POV. Wikibofh 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Guettarda, there's a big difference between (A) labeling someone's statements as false and (B) calling them a liar. If you think about it a moment, you'll realize what it is, and why this distinction is so crucial.

Moreover, this entire issue is a crucial one for Wikipedia's credibility. If we begin enshrining government POV, or international organization POV, as The Truth we will undermine our own self-asserted claim to maintaining neutrality and impartiality in every other dispute as well. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Ed, I don't understand how you think you could possibly get away with editing G's nomination text in that way. Its completely out of order.

this entire issue is a crucial one for Wikipedia's credibility. If we begin enshrining.... No. This RFadmin isn't doing that. If anything, it was done in the recent climate change RFA. In actual terms (look at the editing pattern of the GW related articles) that RFA settled the matter, against the skeptics (I know they formally declined to rule in some areas, but in practical terms thats what happened).

But in all the wild exceitment, I made some responses that I'd like you (Ed) to respond to. You can ignore a and b if you like, but:

(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. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 14:13:25 (UTC).

So: come on Ed: put up, or...

- William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:16:40 (UTC).

I'm not going to muckrake. It would only lead to an unpleasant odor wafting its way into everyone's nostrils. And I already promised you something which I have no intention of taking back. So there! Nyaah!! ;-) Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:31 (UTC)

Ed, this isn't a matter of muckraking. Its a matter of you making allegations which you are, now, apparently unwilling to substantiate. I'm pretty sure what has happened: you are relying on memory, which is fallible. I'm going to set you a challenge now... see you on your talk page. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:38:15 (UTC).

My point to you was, if you think that my statement is an intentional falsehood (ie, a lie), that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. On the other hand, if you change my comment into something that I believe to be untrue, then you have made me, in my own eyes, a liar.

The IPCC position agrees with the majority scientific position, not the other way round. Placing minority opinions based on selective interpretation of the data alongside the majority opinion as if both were equally valid is damaging to Wikipedia - it makes us the mouthpiece of fringe groups. The alternatives are either present the scientific opinion or present the White House opinion (nicely edited by political operatives). I suspect that our credibility is much greater if we take the former route than if we take the latter route. William has saved us from being a mouthpiece of the right wing and held us true to the science. I think that the fringe is still given too much coverage, I think that the articles still give too much credence to minority viewpoints, but that in the interest of NPOV these views must be represented. Guettarda 8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

1. If there is a "majority scientific opinion", please show me the Wikipedia article which documents this.
2. Are you sure the "minority opinion" (by which I assume you mean anti-GW theory) is based on selective interpretation of the data?
   • This should be easy to show, if true. Please show me.
3. Asserting that the UN's climate panel (the IPCC) is correct makes us a UN mouthpiece.
4. Framing the controversy as "scientific opinion" vs. "the White House" is clearly a POV. You do see this, don't you?
5. Going with the mainstream of public opinion will help our credibility only in the short run, not in the long. It would be better to remain neutral instead.
6. As above, framing the controversy as "right wing" vs. "the science" is a POV. Specifically, a left wing POV.
7. I agree that the fringe has been given too much coverage, but not the way you mean. (I'm trying not to put words in your mouth here. :-) It is the United Nations and their Kyoto-justifying climate panel who are on the scientific fringe.
8. Your most serious error is ... But hold on, this is not a personal attack, I'm just saying you made an honest mistake (!) ...
   • Your most serious error shows up at the end when you talk about too much credence to minority viewpoints. The articles should not be giving credence to any viewpoint. This is a matter of controversy, and web site policy dictates that Wikipedia abstain from giving credence to any particular viewpoint. It should merely say that X believes A, and Y does not believe A.

Please don't break up the preceding with interruptions and insertions, but use copy and paste. This is going to be a long thread, I can tell. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:44 (UTC)

C wrote:

I agree with many of Ed Poor's points. 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. Carbonite | Talk 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

I won't argue with your vote, but I will with your reasonning. I've done quite a bit of reverting psuedoscience recently... for example Aetherometry or 1941 Reich experiment or Dynamic theory of gravity or Albert Einstein (well, psuedohistory for the latter). Why is this supposed to be a bad thing? But if you'd like to come and help stem the tide of psuedoscience in a more appropriate fashion, please do William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:23:31 (UTC).

• Your track-record on Aetherometry and the Reich-Einstein experiment is pristine as one of censorship, close-mindedness, judgement before getting acquainted with the facts, distortion of facts and truth, and sheer inquisitorial spirit. It would do you good to step back and look at your systematic demonization of the work of legitimate researchers, even if they are not mainstream. You try to hard to be a good boy. 216.254.166.168 18:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Since this is now the comment page, I have room to expand a bit without boring everyone. Charges about reverts seem to be being flung around somewhat, and I'm becomming sensitive. My reverts, going backwards:

• Albert Einstein (Rv to Ff. Josiah Harlan is indeed interesting, but from his page he doesn't appear to fit the text). Because someone had inserted the claim that JH shared AE's distinction of being invited to be the head of a foreign state. That wasn't true, based on the JH page text. So I removed the claim.
• Sallie Baliunas [1] (rv anon to JQ. Sat rise is *not* v small - some records show it as larger than sfc. Don't fight the sat t rec wars here: go look at the sat page.) This is std.climate-wars stuff. The anons edits are simply wrong (and far from novel): the satellite T record simply doesn't fit her description of it (some version show *more* warming than the sfc); the 1998 elnino affects the sfc record too.
• Talk:Nikola Tesla [2] (rv: removing the related list, it doesn't belong on talk.) For some unknown reason an anon decided to dump a pile of stuff from the main page onto the talk page. Why?

Well, thats all from my last 50 edits. Which ones do you consider unreasonable? William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:35:46 (UTC).

Your reverts by themselves are not unreasonable. However, I disagree with the manner in which you carry them out. Specifically, the comments in your edit summary only serve to increase the level of conflict "Rv, as before. 204's version, despite an astonishing inability to use the preview button, remains inaccurate" [3] or "rv, same as before, stop trying to cover up his mistakes" [4].

People do read edit summaries and it's not helpful when you simply say "Rubbish" [5] or "You are a troll." [6]. Admins shouldn't attract conflict and I can't support someone who would rather "stem the tide of psuedoscience" than build consensus and adhere to NPOV. WMC, I think you're a great contributor, but adminship just doesn't fit you. Carbonite | Talk 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

On the rubbish... you're missing context there, though admittedly its easy to misinterpret. I was criticising *myself* - I wrote a lot of that page. On troll, I am unapologetic: there is no good talking to trolls, its what they want, to waste your time. You just identify them as trolls as stop. 204 is an anon who refuses to sign, refuses to use the preview button (in fact, most probably, deliberately makes large numbers of minor edits to confuse the edit history). Try helping sort of the Tesla articles sometime, you'll find out, or just look at its edit history [7]. Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this: I'm trying to justify myself, not change your vote. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 18:01:51 (UTC).

• No one would probably begrudge your stances on issues like Tesla or Aetherometry if one could see that you were familiar with the subject-matter. The problem is that you proudly parade your ignorance. How can that benefit Wikipedia, the entries in question, or even your own formation as a scientist? No wonder many are convinced that you have failed to grasp the real roots behind so-called Global Warming... 216.254.166.168 18:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

[User:-Ril-]] wrote:

edits too much in the area in which he is professionally involved - i.e. issues around original research

First of all, this simply isn't true: my professional activities centre almost entirely around Antarctica, and almost entirely around things that are simply too abstruse to ever get into wiki. My most recent paper is about different estimates of sea ice thickness in the Weddell sea.

Secondly, it entirely misses the point of original research - if I enter something into wiki that I've written in a journal, that *isn't* OR (you could complain about it being vanity, perhaps, but not OR).

Thirdly, this comment comes rather close to asserting that we only want arcticles edited by people without the expertise to do so properly, which makes no sense. This looks to me suspiciously like wiki (or at least one user) being expert-hostile rather than friendly.

He then added:

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.

Since most of my edits *are* in neutrally reporting/expounding the views of people other than himself, I don't see his grounds for objection. The ideological stuff is pernicious. The professional stuff, I've answered above.

William M. Connolley 21:14:41, 2005-07-10 (UTC).

Ed, the headers are removed because putting them in means they turn up on the project page TOC and they don't usually appear there (none of the other running RfAs have them for example). Adding percentages to votes is always controversial, and the decision to include the neutral votes when the rubric at the top says they "will not be tabulated" is odd too. It would seem to be for the closing bureaucrat(s) to read the numbers, reasonings and distributions. - Splash 00:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

You're right, of course. I was trying to illustrate that the mooted 75% figure didn't fully characterise the vote. Not very clearly, obviously! Sorry. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 04:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks to both of you for explaining that. Uncle Ed 14:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the headers twice. I explained why in the edit summary each time, and you reverted me each time. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I looked in the history, and you're right. Sorry. Anyway, the week is up. What's our next step? Uncle Ed 15:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

A bureaucrat or bureaucrats decide what the outcome was. User:Cecropia seems to do most of these at the moment, usually within a few hours of the close-of-polls, but my understanding is that any Bureaucrat can do the deed. Aren't you a bureaucrat User:Ed Poor?! - Splash 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

He sure is [8]. Carbonite | Talk 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The "polling" has ended, and the percentages are 70% to 30% in favor. Does this represent "consensus"? Uncle Ed 15:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Reading above: the threshold for consensus on this page is roughly 80 percent support. Is there some reason this one should be an exception? -- Tabor 16:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

There are several reasons. See talk. Uncle Ed 16:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't look much like a "consensus to promote" to me. Despite the high turnout, I would be uncomfortable with a 70-30% split since we usually see 75-80% as the minimum necessary. Though I do not necessarily endorse their views, the "Oppose" voters do seem to have plausible reasoning behind their votes. And though Connelley has done much for the project and may well be a suitable admin, it is my view that according to our procedures and traditions he does not qualify for promotion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

For reasons I've stated on my and Ed's talk pages, I'm standing aside on this one. It would be good if Raul654 or Angela would chime in on this. My only firm suggestion is that perhaps it would be better to either (1) bring this back in a month with Ed's exposition on why the opposition is wrong here or (2) restart the nomination clean with argumentation. I would suggest that we do the latter if we can get the assent of three bureaucrats and no bureaucrat in outright opposition. If that is satisfactory to the other bureaucrats I will be one of the "yes" votes on a restart. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Well since the discussion is here, why not. In my opinion, restarting right away would be an awful choice. The voting and comments have been made, and both sides have their reasons, and there was a large turnout. If it falls short of the standard for consensus, so be it. I say this obviously being one of the support votes, because while adminiship is no big deal, not getting it isn't the end of the world either. If Dr. Connolley takes the criticism here into account, I'm quite confident he would achieve undeniable consensus in a month or so. No controversy, no problems, no loss, sounds like a win to me. - Taxman ^Talk 17:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

So nominations should repeat until they succeed? It would save a lot of time if the voting were simply eliminated from the process, then, as voting can be replaced by simply waiting a random period of time before approval. ( SEWilco 18:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)) reply

• Yeah, if "taking criticism into account" was the requirement, we should be sending proposed admins to RfC not RfA. SchmuckyTheCat 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• As a rather inactive bureaucrat (my apologies), I agree with waiting a month. And SEWilco, yes, people can be renominated after a failed nomination. I would say that, in normal circumstances, once someone's been turned down twice, their odds of success on a 3rd try are ridiculously low. But 2nd tries are what this is about--William now has feedback from the community, both good and critical, and he can decide how to change his behavior (if at all) in preparation for a renomination. Anyhow, Cecropia, if you need assent, here's one. Jwrosenzweig 18:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

How to decide

Well, the next step would typically be let the bureaucrats that are familiar with the process handle it. I'm not sure why you insist on commenting in innapropriate places and changing this nomination against all RFA conventions. If you don't know what the consensus standards are, surely you must reallize that since almost every other RFA nomination goes smoothly, someone does, and there is no need to ask on the top of the nomination. For the record, if you've followed the RFA discussions, the generally agreed upon standards are above 80% is a shoe in, 75-80 is bureacrat discretion zone, depending on their interpretation of the comments, etc, and less is no consensus so no promotion. It's less, so typically this case would not be promoted, though I won't speak for Jim or Mark. As a bureaucrat, you can close the nomination if you like, but notice there are a number of steps involved for the process to go smoothly. Also note, letting nominations go without comments until one of the other bureaucrats has a chance to do it is not a problem, since consensus is what we are after, not strict vote closing times. Your behavior in this case is unusual at the very best. - Taxman ^Talk 16:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (I think). I'm inclined to just go ahead and make William an admin anyway. I did that for Cecropia (if anyone remembers that far back) and it worked out superbly. I will think about this for a few hours and then ... gosh, who knows what this Ed Poor character will do next?! -- Uncle Ed 16:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you're joking, Ed. That would, for all the obvious reasons be wildly inappropriate. IMHO, you're too closely involved with this user to be involved in closing the RfA and for a bureaucrat to ignore community consensus and precedent would be a serious step. - Splash 16:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I agree completely. It doesn't matter whether Ed promoted or rejected, there would be chaos either way. Even if Ed weren't closely involved with WMC, the fact that Ed asked mere hours ago "What's our next step?" wouldn't instill people with confidence that process was followed. There's plenty of active bureaucrats to close this one. Let's wait a bit. Carbonite | Talk 16:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

My reasoning process is informed by the following:

1. Check if there is a general consensus that the person should be sysopped or bureaucratted. [9]
2. I have little beef with Ed's actions, to be honest, including his temporary removal of my sysop powers. What I would like to see more of from Ed is attempts to make sure that his instinctive reasoning is backed up by consensus. [10]

It's also balanced by what is best for the project, which is really a judgment call. If it were just a matter of numbers, votes would be tabulated by software and results automatically applied. But computers cannot create an encyclopedia. They can't even reliably spell check an article, let alone verify content. Uncle Ed 17:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe promotion is appropriate for the reasons I cite on the project page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

There is not a consensus to promote the user. Not in the vote, and not even in this discussion! However, the vote is fairly close to consensus, so I suggest extending it for 24 hours to see if consensus is reached. If consensus to promote is not achieved by then, the nomination will have failed. With a small majority in favour of promotion, in that instance, I would strongly urge renomination in a month or so (i.e. Cecropia's option 1). Warofdreams 17:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I do not recommend extending the end time of the vote. I feel that this is appropriate only when there has been a light turnout, and there clearly are plenty of voters in this case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

If I am reading this correctly, the margin of decision is basically the 12 editors who voted opposed based solely on the ArbCom sanction. 67/29 -> 79/17 would be cleanly greater than 80%. In light of this, I would think the appropriate behavior is to wait until the revert parole is lifted and then rerun the nomination. To break with recent practice and promote WMC anyway basically amounts to voiding the votes of those individuals who relied on the judgment of ArbCom to decide whether or not WMC could be trusted to behave responsibly. Maybe that is an argument you want to make Ed, but it strikes me as a dangerous one for the community. Though "Ed Poor says that ArbCom judgments shouldn't be relied on Adminship votes", would make interesting WikiNews to read with some of Cecropia's popcorn. I trust that WMC is a big boy and won't mind waiting a while to demonstrate to the satisfaction of ArbCom and others that he can act responsibily. Not being made an admin right now is hardly the end of the world. Dragons flight 18:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to wait a month or so and then re-nominate. I opposed on this RfA, but if WMC listens to the opposition, I highly doubt I'll vote the same way next time. I'm sure there are many users thinking along the same lines. Why cause lots of bad blood now when waiting is a perfectly good option? Carbonite | Talk 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Not another revote

Not another immediate revote! Didn't we learn to avoid controversy and conflict from the last time an immediate revote was enacted? Un focused 18:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• An immediate revote is an abuse of the polling place. In real life candidates have to wait a year (depending upon local customs), or the length of the term of office. Continually voting until there is a success both degrades an individual election and abuses the shared polling place until it is unusable. Continuous voting for nominations might be offset by continuous voting for deselection, as sporting events have shown that ongoing activities of many kinds can retain audience interest. However, interest tends to wane in the process itself with both long-lasting campaign seasons and long-lasting sports conflicts ( NHL). ( SEWilco 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)) reply

I've asked Dr. C. what he thinks. And I still think that 70-30 (or 72-28 if you discount a few invalid comments) is good enough. People make too much of the arbcom thing.

And I personally regard William M. Connoley as utterly trustworthy, in that when he promises something he always fulfills it. His word is gold, and that inclines me to take matters into my own hands.

(There's another policy page - signed by 31 users including Raul and Angela - which empowers bureaucrats to make this kind of call. There was a vote there, and it was unanimous.) Uncle Ed 18:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a policy page....it's just a poll on a talk page. Note that there are several other bureaucrats advising you not to take matters into your own hands on this talk page. - Splash 18:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay, okay, I give up. --your humble servant, Uncle Ed 18:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the de-escalation of tension represented in your brief comment, in addition to "not a policy", your definition of "unanimous" seems to discount the four users who favored other ideas. Un focused 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

It sounds like I'm screaming about this too much, doesn't it? I don't mean to and the comment below is important, too. Also, I do trust Bureaucrat judgement (all of you) and I'm not one for making the lives of those that do such good things difficult. It was with reluctance (but conviction) that I opposed the nomination, and my oppositional attitude to the closure is quite separate; WP needs people like WMC around, desperately, and I hope he stays. - Splash 18:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Ed, a few points. First, there is precedent for a 70-30 promotion; I've seen Cecropia do it. I can't remember the exact case but it was late last year. There was quite a bit of consternation among opponents, particularly because Cecropia clearly supported the nomination. Jwrosenzweig wrote a very compelling defense of Cecropia's discretion in the matter. Essentially that you bureaucrats are entrusted to determine consensus, not just count votes; the reasons stated for the votes matter as well as the number. I was an opponent of promotion, but that argument was compelling. Second, some object that you are too close to the case. I would respond that a promotion by you would have particular credibility, as you were neutral & you also have considerable experience disagreeing with the good Dr. Derex 18:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (formerly wolfman). reply

oh well, moot now i guess. Derex 18:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I have closed the nomination as unsuccessful.

Among bureaucrats, Cecropia, Warofdreams, Jwrosenzweig, and I have reviewed the nomination; none of us are willing to promote. Though Ed Poor supports promotion, I believe that he is mistaken in his reading of the will of the community. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps next time WMC is nominated for adminship Ed could vote for him :-) Sunray 19:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above that there's no consensus - I think any renomination of WMC would best be made after the revert parole is lifted. →Raul654 20:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming to this a few hours late, but count me as another bureaucrat who agrees with the decision to close the nomination as unsuccessful. 70% is highly borderline, and should only really be considered in a vote overrun by sockpuppets, which this one wasn't. Angela . 02:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Eh Wikipedia cannot be that wrong - you were rejected in your ascension through the system. Can only be good. 216.254.166.168 18:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

216.254.166.168 made a number of comments critical of WMC's nomination several weeks after the nomination had closed. Following standard policy, these were removed on the grounds that a completed vote should be preserved as a record of what happened. This user has complained to me that he wants his criticisms preserved in case there should ever be a future vote on WMC. As such, I am providing this diff, which shows the comments he added: [11]. Dragons flight 18:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)