Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Measurement causes collapse

IN CONCLUSION
This whole process has been eye opening. It started with an article for deletion from an editor who did not make any attempts at conciliation or provide any constructive criticisms. That same editor attempted to find consensus by "canvassing" on the physics wiki talk page. Initially I didn't complain since I believe people should be allowed to express their opinion.

Even if I disagree with it.

However, that is true for others editing similar content. And when the same methods were used William M. Connolley, an administrator, cried foul. And went out of his way to point out that each person was suspect, although the person who originally nominated the article was never seen as suspect, nor editors who happened to agree with him who had also been "canvassed".

William M. Connolley then blocked me when his hypocrisy was pointed out.

I appealed and his editing buddy by the name of BozMo denied me. And later threatened to block me for miss spelling Connolley's last name. Another user pointed out, contrary to BozMo's insinuation, that the two work closely together. BozMo did not recuse himself for having a conflict of interest, instead he took the extra step of coming onto this page and asking that the article be deleted.

I can only speculate who else may be here at the behest of William M. Connolley, BozMo, and the nominator. Between the three of them they can no doubt muster a small army of supporters, since it's not really about being constructive or promoting an editor's enthusiasm for an article.

It's about pride and punishment.

As long as adminstrators, and their friends, focus more on their authority rather than the content of articles wikipedia is ultimately doomed to be viewed as a second class website where angst ridden adults hang out to play "article wars".

And that violates the spirit of wikipedia and taints the efforts of all those editors and administrators who do good work.

Lordvolton (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)