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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  WMC, look at my oppose vote. How is saying he doesn't like you a personal insult? Pgio 10:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you read the edit and the context. William M. Connolley 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  I mean, call your therapist or something. Might be considered as an insult. Fad (ix) 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Don't feed the trolls mate. — Dunc|☺ 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

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