User talk:CIreland/Archive 2

Nice Work!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire edit warring

Hello. Are you to hate what I edit? I do not understand. Thank you. Nikephoros Phokas (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the cavalary arrived? One can only hope so.

Hy, look I'm a bit tired of the whole issue so I'm not going to try to be candid. You have noted that an user is trying to push his POV in the article "Roman Empire". I know my limits and the rules (3RR) and therefore I'm unable to fix the damage which Nikophoras has done to the article. If you are willing, and if you have the patience for it, could you please revert the article to the prior version (the article as it was before he simply imposed his POV and simply deleted worthy info - check the diff)? Thank you. Flamarande (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is escalating. Could you please protect the article? Flamarande (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not, as I see one editor edit-warring and then logging out to continue. I have blocked him and his IP. If he returns with a new IP, I will semi-protect the page, but I would prefer to avoid this as this will also prevent the good faith edits of User:209.90.146.105 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). CIreland (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably overreacting (at this point a bit of paranoia appears in unpleasant ways :( ) but I find it a bit suspicious that several users (mark: strictly new user accounts with virtually no edits anywhere else) appeared in the article's talkpage all advocating the 'same side'. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cody7777777. Increasing my suspicion is the fact that Cody always wants the last word in the debate and is usually very efficient and all too quick to do so. But as Nico began to impose his POV Cody became mute. As I said I'm very likely to be simply over reacting but... Flamarande (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Regardless what you want to believe, I have no idea who Goremite, Nikephoros Phocas, or Molot Gorla are. The IP adress 193.227.242.2 was mine, I forgot to log, when I wanted to post something. I had no reason to join the "edit war", from a historic point of view I believe the "Roman Empire" ended in 1461 (which is not mentioned at all in the "infobox", it is true that is nearer to 1453, and so I had no reason to stop them), and unlike the users who want "1453", I don't want to waste my time in "edit wars", I have other things to do on my computer, (I only edit it twice a month ago, when Wengier changed from "1453" to "476" on 19:36, 12 June 2008, after that Wengier "fought" with Titus001 until they reached the "476/1453" compromise). Also, if it is really important, I'm Roman(ian), not Greek/Romios or Turkish. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cody7777777, I think I have to clarify about this. It was Titus001 who first changed from "476" to "1453" on 21:37, 10 June 2008 ([1]), which was soon undid by Ssolbergj on 21:49, 10 June 2008 ([2]). It was until Titus001 changed again from "476" to "1453" on 17:58, 12 June 2008 ([3]), I undid his edit on 19:36, 12 June 2008 ([4]) by saying "Romulus Augustus was NOT deposed in 1453", because he only changed the end year, but not the end event, which caused INCONSISTENCY between the end year and event. Thus, the version before the previous (relatively small) edit war was "476", not "1453". The compromise "476/1453" was reached during this edit war.--Wengier (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the accusation (I was mainly reffering to my actions in the above post), I was simply around that day watching the article, and at one point I realized, that the end date changed from "1453" to "476", and since no one seemed to change it back that day, I decided to do so myself. Cody7777777 (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You should also block the other anon and Flamarande. They want the same thing and edit the same "POV". Or are you going to block only one opinion? Goremite (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL (see the post above). Please semi-protect the page asap (could you please revert his edit before you do so?). 209.90.146.105 will hopefully understand. Flamarande (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Laugh ou loud indeed. That you wantt your version protect is fairly obvious ... though you seem to have CIreland suckered. CIreland, if you are Flamarande Point of View buddy you should declare it rather than sitting on the sidelines waitting to selectively apply your block and protection buttons. Flamarande's POV has been recentlyy destroyed completely by Dimadick by the way. Goremite (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK CIreland. I am not supposed to revert more than 3 times. Correct? Flamarande is? Can I revert again now because Flamarande has gone 4 times, or is the rule not flexible? Goremite (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not block another editor for reverting the edits of an obvious block-evading sockpuppet. CIreland (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Hi CIreland. I protected the Roman Empire article because of the ongoing edit war that began as soon as the previous protection lifted. I am of course willing to lift the protection as soon as is possible, and I will step it down to semi-protection for now. Is there a good chance that semi-protection will prevent a re-occurrence of the edit warring? I have deliberately not involved myself in the details of the content dispute in order to avoid taking sides. If the situation would be better served with semi-protection, then blocks may be required to prevent further edit wars. I have confidence that you will step in to take the right actions. Best, Gwernol 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reset protection to semi. Hopefully things will calm down now. Glad you're on the case. Good luck, Gwernol 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting the wonderful thank you note that vandal left on my user page. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned one of your 3RRN decisions at AN/I (not to complain about you)

In filing a complaint at AN/I against Scjessey, I've mentioned your decision about his case on July 1 at 3RRN. I don't mention you by name and don't criticize you personally, but you may want to see the report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing. -- Noroton (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DoctorFrench

Hi, you recently blocked User:DoctorFrench for edit warring. There's currently a sockpuppetry case in the queue concerning User:Emma368 (who was blocked yesterday for impersonating an Admin in the sockpuppetry case). It looks like the User:DoctorFrench account is yet another sockpuppet which has been used to impersonate me. I'm not sure if it's 'the done thing' for me to ask you to consider permanently blocking User:DoctorFrench as a vandalism-only account, or should I report it at WP:AIV or WP:AN/I? Many thanks for any help or advice you can offer. DrFrench (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to second this suggestion for a permanent block, though on different grounds which I feel are adequately proven: User impersonation. As you can see, I tried to put this on the proper channel at WP:UAA, but the bot tossed it out since this person is already blocked at present. "Misleading usernames", including impersonation, are already specifically barred by the Wikipedia username policy, as I'm sure you're quite aware. I'm sorry if this comes across as vindictive, but I think it's abundantly clear this user is going to cause trouble and extra work for us all again when the block is lifted, and a longer-term block for this proven (I think/hope?) offense would help to head that off. - Vianello (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind! It appears User:Islander has already extended the block to indefinite. Still, thanks for your assistance and intercession on this! - Vianello (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Care New England

I am contacting you on behalf of Care New England, a health care organization, and would like to know what can be done to put the information about our organization back up on Wikipedia. Thank you Jlg3978 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines for determining whether an organization or company has received sufficient coverage in secondary sources are given in detail at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additionally, it is important to make sure that any article has the tone and style of an encyclopedia article rather than an advertisement. This is best done by relying on secondary sources for the article rather than the organization's corporate literature. CIreland (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

For the template, I agree. Perhaps, the "letter" should be made its own section on the dictionary page, then the template links to that? What do you think? I have a lot of information on the letter. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have strong opinion but I do think that a straight merge of Letter to Chesterfield into A Dictionary of the English Language wouldn't be the best at the moment because the Dictionary article is relatively short (and so the Letter content would be disproportionate.) CIreland (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

Can you help me out here? Several editors keep disrupting the proper use of this talk page and are focusing on attacking editors rather than on developing the article. I have advised them to take such concerns to the appropriate official channels if they feel that their concerns are legitimate. Instead, they persist in being disruptive on the article talk page. What is the appropriate way to handle disruptive editors?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He accuses me of being mgm and soccermom, please look into this and clear my name up, this user above had been found of using multiple accounts in an attempt to form a consensus and is now trying to drag innocent people down with him.Grant23 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you wrongly accused me can you clean up some of the mess 198.97.67.59 made, the page is now protected.Under general profile of illegal immigrants the first of the sentence of the child rapists (yeah, that is what I am dealing with, so forgive me if I get annoyed). Other than not abiding by wiki's policy at neutrality it makes no sense can an editor please fix it and "illegal alien" is not appropriate just as "undocumented immigrant" is not appropriate. Change it back to illegal immigrant.Grant23 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I just found this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Grant23

So what does this mean, I am none of those people, can you look into it. I honestly swear that I am none of those people and 198.97.67.59 is trying to push me out as an editor so he can go back to editing without challenge from nonbiased editors. Please look at the discussion page on illegal immigration. How do I clear my name up? Grant23 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Answers to multiple questions:

1. You have asked me to make an edit to a page that I have fully protected. I am not allowed to this except under the most extreme of circumstances. If the change you would like is uncontroversial, please use {{editprotected}} on the talk page instead so that another admin will respond.
2. I'm still looking into which IPs may be the same individual.
3. I am confused by your statement that you "just found" the Request for Checkuser that was done on your account, since you edited it yesterday. However, I agree with Sam Korn (talk · contribs) and find the evidence compelling:
   • The three other accounts were created only days after your own.
   • The edits of the three accounts have only been to support your edits on the talk page and by reverting the article.
   • All the talk page edits are stylistically similar.
   • A Request for Checkuser found that it is likely they are the same individual.
4. With regard to a longer term resolution of the issues at Illegal immigration to the United States, I would suggest that you, or another interested party, use an article request for comment to gain some outside opinions.

CIreland (talk)

That's the thing, they aren't my sockpuppets, I have my own site and these things are easy to figure out. See if we have the same IP, location, operating system, are we logged in at the same time. At least you're looking into it. I didn't realize the report was conclusive in finding me using sockpuppets, I thought it was scandit's attempt to discredit me. I don't use sock puppets so it never even occurred to me that decision had been made. I just feel bad that people were banned but I was spared because of this witch hunt. You should consider lifting the ban on their IPs, because they really aren't me and I feel kind of guilty now for punishing them because I was overzealous. But none of us did anything wrong and hopefully this will sort it self out after you look into it. Thanks again!Grant23 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thinks it's beyond question that Soccer Mom 5, MGM87 and Swim19 are the same person and I'm not going to unblock them because they have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. As to whether you are the same person as those three accounts, I am prepared to consider the possibility that you may have been the victim of an attempt to make it appear that you were socking. Regardless, I have no current intention of blocking the Grant23 account. Furthermore, in case you were not aware, you have every right to remove anything you like from your user talk page, for any reason. CIreland (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have my own reasons for being an IP anon. I will keep those reasons to myself. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that being an IP anon is not, in itself, a violation. I have also attempted to always edit in good faith and not abuse Wikipedia.

All that being said, if someone ever posts suspicion that I have violated 3RR, they are free to post those links in my page and, if I have violated 3RR (or usually if it just looks like I might have - for the sake of avoiding a problem), I will correct the problem. Noone has ever done that. I suspect the reason is that I do, in fact, make every effort to adhere even more tightly to policy than do most editors (insisting on being an IP anon subjects me to greater scrutiny - I accept that that greater scrutiny is an important difference between an IP anon editing under different IPs and a named user editing under multiple names), so I have to make that much more effort to adhere to policy). Unfortunately, since several of the articles I work on are politically charged, it is that much more challenging. Like most people, I'm not a robot. Still, insisting on being an outsider to Wikipedia allows me to see several things that others might miss. One of those things is how cliques develop, spread, and influence Wikipedia. Perhaps someday I'll write a letter on it. The point is, if I had not made my choice to be an IP anon - an outsider, I'm sure I would have been less aware of these things. That awareness is valuable, because it gives me a better idea of how Wikipedia works and what needs improving. I use multiple IPs. I want to remain anonymous, because of the outsider status it gives me. That being said, I have to decline confirming or denying which IPs I operate under. I will say this. I use some of the IPs you mentioned, but, even then, I am not the only editor using those IPs. Anyway, I'm drifting off target. What I want to say is thank you for taking the time to check if I was editing in good faith or not rather than just assuming I wasn't because I'm an IP anon. Thank you for locking down the article. It certainly needed it. Thank you for stopping the disruptive stuff going on in the talk page. Basically, just thanks for taking care of this situation. Its very appreciated. Sometimes people don't hear "thanks" enough for the work they do here.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is already getting confusing. Is 75.179.153.110 the same editor as initiated this section by positing above under the IP 198.97.67.59, or not? I am pretty sure they are the same editor (see Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States) but that may not be as clear to others. Terjen (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for your interest. The discussion you asked about is linked in my original response to the 3RR report. I was also clear in each edit summary I made; if you review them you'll find that I did ask for discussion and consensus prior to (instead of after) the significant merge, each time. Badagnani (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you again for your comments. You again state that there was no discussion; however, there is indeed a discussion and it is linked in my first comment at the 3RR report. It is a bluelink in my first comment. I hope you will be able to take a look at it. Badagnani (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the talk page of the reporting editor. As it is clear that he, following his previous practice of editing in an intimidating manner, is using "brute force," indeed reverting just after making the 3RR report, wouldn't it be best if the templates are returned to their original unmerged state pending consensus? Otherwise, I believe it's simply enabling editing behavior that is contrary to our fundamentally collaborative, consensus-driven project. I don't think it's too much to ask, in this case. Thanks again for your consideration, Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is most unfortunate because it sends a strong message to the reporting editor that such "brute force" changes, imposed through insistent, repeated reverting in lieu of actual discussion and consensus-seeking, is fine, and should be done again in the future. Of course, in his hip pocket will always be the threat of reporting me. This intimidating, non-collegial manner of editing is not what we are or should be about. I don't believe it's too much to ask that the templates be protected in their original, non-merged versions pending the seeking and generating of consensus, for the above reasons. Thank you again for your consideration. Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate your reply. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me? Admin

Can you correct my summary for me (reason: grammatical error) Original (in History of NetBurst)

23:31, 20 July 2008 Ramu50 (Talk | contribs) m (8,958 bytes) (Minor changes,User: Aluvus have 
been told the reason why it is legitmate to put onto the article. If you objec it copy the my 
info and place it back onto the article Talk page for further discussion

Wanted / request.

If you object it, please copy the my info and place it back onto the article Talk page for 
further discussion

Thanks. －　－＊ --Ramu50 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, for advice on this you would need to ask an admin with some knowledge of this subject area; I have none. CIreland (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AVN is a mainstream news source

Just because a news source isn't ABC or NBC doesn't mean it's not mainstream. AVN news is read by a large number of people and often has scoops when it comes to stuff like this. They are a solid organisation with integrity and are a proper news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-Yellow (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that AVN is a far superior source to the blogs that this information had previously been cited to, the allegations are so inflammatory that I think we should insist on absolutely impeccable sources - and preferably several of such. CIreland (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com then, apparently they have the sources but are just waiting on legal clearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-Yellow (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Troy King

Thanks for the protect on Troy King. Looks like things got out of hand last night after I went to bed. Kingnavland (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this latest revert. You'd think folks would get the message by now.Kingnavland (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

70.177.10.53 racsim

Hi. You have warned this IP concerning his racist remarks[5] on Talk:Menachem Begin, yet he continues[6]. -- Nudve (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Blocked for 31 hours. CIreland (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Section

Regarding Moris Teper...How does this person merit having an article? The article looks to be autobiographical. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie6969 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Our little Grawpie...

I am SO glad that I'm getting under his skin. What a pathetic little person. For a year, all he's wanted to do is to sodomize everyone on the site! It's like I've told a few other users: He has no life, no chance at getting a date for a Friday night and is obsessed with his, um, shortcomings. I have to laugh at this idiot; it's almost gone on too long to pity him and his little Friday night bedfellows. Thanks for blocking that anus-obsessed little dweeb. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I've been sodomized TWICE! I really should leave word with him the next time they throw a White Party in my area. Just too funny. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about alleged use of multiple anon IP addresses by someone who has an account

Hi. This is a followup to the recent (unsuccessful) request to have the "Illegal immigration to the United States" article semi-protected.

The user Psychohistorian appears to have been editing this and related pages using a long list of anonymous IP addresses. Said list of addresses was put on his/her user page several months ago, and Psychohistorian has made no attempt to delete the list from his/her page, though he/she recently appears to have denied the allegation (albeit claiming that it's irrelevant in any case).

Two questions:

• If it is in fact the case that Psychohistorian is editing anonymously as various IP addresses, in addition to (or instead of) editing as Psychohistorian, is this sort of activity appropriate? If it's not sockpuppetry, it seems to me to be pretty close to it, and despite the comment on his/her user page that "this user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy", I'm not sure I see which (if any) of the exceptions in WP:SOCK#LEGIT encompasses this particular pattern of usage.

• If (as Psychohistorian now appears to be claiming) these anonymous editors are other people, and not Psychohistorian, would it be appropriate (given the confusion and the real danger of abuse via sockpuppetry) to block all anonymous editing from the specific IP addresses in question, and require these anonymous editors (whoever they are) to sign up for their own individual accounts?

If it were up to me, I admit I would favour a total ban on all IP editing and require all Wikipedia editors to sign up for accounts — but I realize that's not going to happen, and I'm not going to try to push for such a change in general policy. But in cases like this, where there seems to be a real potential for sockpuppetry, I do think it's appropriate to ask for some reasonable action to be taken, even if the result might be to place certain limits on IP editing.

Richwales (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's always a complex issue. There's nothing prohibited about editing anonymously even if you have a shifting IP and/or have a registered account. However, if an editor takes advantage of this to edit war, to evade a block/ban or to otherwise deliberately represent himself as more than one individual, then this become a blockable offence. If it's a borderline case, then file a suspected sock puppet report. If there's clearly a large problem, then additionally ask for a request for checkuser. I've looked over the history of Illegal immigration to the United States for past couple of days but I don't see any serious edit-warring. I do however, see some editors with a clear POV to push, but this is by no means limited anonymous contributors. CIreland (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's not completely clear to me, either, whether real abuse is being done by this particular anonymous editor (who might or might not be the same person as Psychohistorian), in this particular article, at this particular time. And while I would personally prefer to see him/her use a named account rather than IP addresses — and I'm unable to figure out what rational basis he/she could possibly have for declining to do this in hopes of remaining an "outsider" or whatever — I'll accept that he/she does have a right to operate in this way. If I do see evidence of something more serious going on, I'll file a report, but not till then. Thanks again. Richwales (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is hard to see what rational basis an editor would have for refusing to use a named account and rather edit from numerous IP addresses, at least if the editor's intentions are in the spirit of Wikipedia. Editing the same article from multiple IP accounts is confusing for the other editors, which may easily come to believe they are dealing with multiple individuals instead of one, opening for manipulation by the IP master. A fringe "benefit" of using IP accounts might be that it provides an alibi to get other editors to do your bidding - 75.179.153.110 wrote that "anon IPs can't request IP traces" to get Schrandit into doing the checkuser of User:Grant23. Terjen (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 15, 75.179.153.110 undid revision 225739076 claiming it to be "as per consensus on talk page, yes, it is". Shortly thereafter, responding to the explanation on the Talk page for the original edit, 75.179.153.110 claimed that "a consensus has been reached" in an earlier section called Intro. In this section, User:198.97.67.59 and User:75.179.153.110 argue in favor of the same position, with both likely owned by the same master, User:Psychohistorian. Terjen (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In that talk page section, 198.97.67.59 appears to respond as if continuing a conversation that 75.179.153.110 started but I think it would be hard to argue that there was an attempt to deceive. Most likely these represent home and work IPs of the same individual. CIreland (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two IPs most likely represent the work of the same individual, but if so, the editor fails to make this clear. The editor has not acknowledged to edit using both IPs on the same pages. User:75.179.153.110 claims consensus in a discussion in which there are four participants, of which this editor likely owns half. These multiple IP accounts are also involved in other debates on the page, giving the impression of broader support for viewpoints than actually exists. Consider your response if these two IP accounts were different registered users with the same master. Is multiple IP accounts a loophole in WP:SOCK? Terjen (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's your version of the facts. Here's mine. The edits I made were to reflect discussion which had already taken place in the discussion page. Instead of participating in that discussion where your voice could have been heard, you chose to respond by reverting edits. Then you got upset because the people actually participating in the discussion page on those particular issues disagreed with you. There certainly was an issue, but it wasn't sock puppetry on my behalf. It was you being a disruptive editor.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I had already discussed my edit on the Talk page three hours before you made yours, which stands for itself in showing how you were being disruptive to push your own POV. You made a synthesis with a misleading quote from the US code, inserting the word "however" to make it appear as if our reliable sources[7][8] were in conflict with the law when substantiating a point you apparently disagree with. In your response shortly afterwards you claimed that "a consensus has been reached" and demanded that "If you wish to go against the consensus here, then I suggest you create an RfC". A "consensus" in which this user seem to be the master of half of the four accounts. Terjen (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I had an issue with the definition you were using. I created a subsection on the talk page to discuss it (00:23, 10 July 2008). The only response was from Oroso and he also disliked the definition you were using (18:49, 10 July 2008). Later, you created your own section to address the issue we were already discussing. Okay, fine. But what we had then was two editors falling on one side of the issue and one editor falling on the other side of the issue. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, nor does it mean "whatever Terjen agrees with". I will note, however, that I attempted to enjoin you in a dialogue to address our differences of opinion on the issue. You would not respond. Several hours later, at 02:45, 15 July 2008, I replaced your definition with an alternative definition. Two hours later, you reverted it. I had a consensus of two active editors addressing the issue in the talk page against one editors addressing the issue in the talk page, so, as per that consensus, I undid your revert at 00:23, 10 July 2008. You seem to be operating under several misconceptions. One, that 'consensus' has to be something you agree with. Two, that you can stop the editing process by not participating in discussion and simply reverting anything you dislike. That's being disruptive.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. User:75.179.153.110 created the intro subsection on Talk "to take an unofficial poll of the editors working on this article". Both IP accounts in question were used to post in this section. Also, the change this editor reverted had already been substantially discussed on the Talk page in the preceding Civil vs. Criminal section. The claim about me not participating in the discussion has no merit. I posted nine comments in this section, concluding that "Wikipedia editors are definitely -not- reliable sources on issues of law" and that we should not have our lead suggest that "lllegal immigration to the United States is a criminal ... offense" as our article then did based on this editor's original research. I pointed to reliable sources stating the opposite.[9][10] During the discussion in this section, User:75.179.153.110 posted eight times and User:198.97.67.59 posted twice, the latter in both cases appearing to support the position of the former. Terjen (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, look at the section Civil vs. Criminal. Reading it, you find that I did, in fact, wrongly count the editors who support your definition vs. the editors who don't. Factoring in the editors there, there are -three- not two editors who disagreed with your definition of illegal immigration and only one, yourself, who supported it. Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it. Yet, you repeatedly reverted against consensus. Like I said, that's being disruptive.

-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The two other editors that disagreed were both recruited by 75.179.153.110 to back up this editor's position, see here for PubliusFL and here for Schrandit. The proclaimed "consensus" was formed by one master editor with multiple handles and recruits supporting the same point of view. Note that several additional editors also participated in the discussion. Terjen (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, can you confirm whether you, 75.179.153.110, are the same editor that edited as User:198.97.67.59? Terjen (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Spices articles

Hello, you had asked a few days ago that I wait until consensus develops to edit articles related to herbs and spices. However, User:Jerem43 is not adhering to Discussion (or even using it at all), just imposing his own ideas in an aggressive manner (deleting templates, merging others, etc., always without consensus, stating that his ideas are so important that they need to be imposed before consensus is developed; then, afterwards, it's the "possession is nine tenths of the law" defense," basically saying "well, I've already changed it (i.e., deleted templates, merged others); there's nothing you can do." There seems to be no way to deal with this other than to insist on the use of "Discussion" and consensus (which I did before, and was blocked). However, it's very much a losing battle when dealing with an aggressive editor who refuses to use Discussion or adhere to consensus. I would very much appreciate your help in this. All I am asking is that Discussion be used, and that consensus be developed for these large changes before they are imposed, not after. It's a reasonable request, I think. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The crux of this is the manner of editing that does not wish to be bound by the use of Discussion or consensus, particularly in the case of large changes. It really is fundamentally important to our project that such changes not be made without Discussion, especially when the editor is asked to do so; however, he continues to make such large changes before, rather than after, using Discussion and forming consensus. Can something please be done? I don't believe my request is unreasonable. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did write something here. CIreland (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello sir, I want to let you know that Badagnani is the subject of an ANI report for abusive behavior against me. He has a history of edit warring, 3r violations, WP:OWN and wikistalking going back several years. He has been blocked seven times for his disruptive behaviors, the last time just seven days ago. This whole recent incident is another example of his poor behavior and I believe it is his intention to use you as a proxy for this current issue. If you would like to confirm this with other admins, please check his block log. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:EmpireForever

Hi. Do you want to comment on this user's unblock request? IMHO, given his promise, the block can be lifted.  Sandstein  20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking advice on dealing with an accusation of incivility

Hi again. In the course of discussion of the appropriateness (or not) of the term "anchor babies" in the "Birthright citizenship in the United States of America" article, the anonymous editor we were talking about earlier (the one posting from several IP addresses in at least two networks, and who might or might not be the same person as the apparently inactive account Psychohistorian, and that question may or may not really matter anyway) has accused me of being uncivil and is demanding an apology. (Go see the "Anchor Baby" section of the talk page for the details.)

I honestly feel I chose my words as carefully as possible, and that I was not being inappropriate, and while it was not my intent to offend anyone without cause, I hesitate to offer an apology in this situation for fear that it would be seen as validating an interpersonal style which I genuinely feel is not constructive, helpful, or in conformance with the true meaning and intent of Wikipedia policies.

I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. I would prefer not to have to escalate the issue if that's not necessary — though I don't know whether the anonymous editor might choose to do so him/herself if I don't offer a speedy apology — and I'm not even sure how a dispute like this would be handled under WP procedures anyway, given that one of the parties (being anonymous) doesn't have a talk page for notices and such.

Your thoughts? Richwales (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wish to apologise then don't apologise. Accusing people of "wikilawyering" is a bit of a blanket statement but it's fundamentally a comment on contributions rather then editors so it's not worth anyone getting their knickers in a twist about. My advice: avoid getting drawn into protracted debates about civility - they are never productive and can be used as to distract and filibuster. If someone has an issue with your civility then they should report you to an admin who will warn and possibly subsequently block if they feel it is warranted. Given that no reporting, warning or blocks have occurred I'd just forget about it. CIreland (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. A CfR is already pending on the original content question, though no outside people have chimed in yet — all we've gotten so far is an argument between the anonymous editor and another participant over the proper format of a CfR! At this point, I'm inclined to just wait, not do anything to the article or the talk page for a while, and see what kind of input we get from the CfR. If the anonymous editor won't let the incivility accusation alone, I'll ask him to bring it up with an admin so it can be sorted out properly. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks again for the feedback. Richwales (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are relevant quotes from Wikipedia:Wikilawyering,

• Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions.
• The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL).
• an accusation in wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations.

Note that an explanation was not given. Rather, Richwales said that he was unable to articulate the basis for his accusation. Other quotes from the same wikilawyering policy..

• As any pejorative, it is an offense towards a fellow Wikipedian.
• the phrase "You are wikilawyering." is an insult.

-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not making a big mistake here by pursuing this discussion, but whatever . . . .

If we're going to be precise, I did not in fact say "you are wikilawyering" to the anonymous editor. What I originally said was: Could we please back off a bit on the "lawful neutral" rhetoric? I really don't think it's helpful from the standpoint of our trying to reach a consensus.

"Lawful neutral", BTW, is a term from Dungeons & Dragons referring to a particular type of philosophical alignment or mindset.

The anonymous editor asked what I meant by "lawful neutral", to which I replied: My earlier reference to "lawful neutral rhetoric" was basically a plea to avoid the kind of obsessive hyperfocussing on rules that leads to wikilawyering. Sorry if you weren't familiar with this expression or didn't understand the reference.

The anonymous editor countered: So, instead of using objective criteria and integrity to determine what should be in a Wikipedia article, you believe we should focus on using what exactly? He/she also admonished me for suggesting that he/she was "wikilawyering" (an uncivil accusation).

In an effort to explain myself further, I said: With respect, and without any desire to be uncivil, I feel that you have been making arguments here which are based on unreasonably narrow and overliteral interpretations of Wikipedia principles. I'm not sure how to articulate my feelings precisely, but I don't believe that means my position is wholly without merit.

The anonymous editor rejected my attempt at an explanation, and also dismissed my inability to articulate my concerns as simply meaning I was admitting my accusations were baseless. He/she admits he/she is a "stickler for policy, guidelines, and process" and sees nothing at all wrong with this. And, as best I can tell, he/she continues to consider my comments as constituting a literal, but groundless, accusation of wikilawyering.

I hope this is a reasonably balanced explanation of what has been happening. If you haven't already read the "Anchor Baby" section of the "Birthright citizenship in the United States of America" talk page, that would probably give you an even more complete picture of where our discussions have been going and how we arrived at the current dispute. Richwales (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you claim that I'm wikilawyering because, you claim, I am, "obsessive[ly] hyperfocussing on rules" and "making arguments here which are based on unreasonably narrow and overliteral interpretations of Wikipedia principles", though you don't specify what you think is so unreasonably narrow about my use of Wikipedia policy. I also pointed out to you that being a stickler for the rules and policies of Wikipedia is not the same as wikilawyering and I acknowledge that I am being a stickler for the rules and policies of Wikipedia. You've now stated in the article's discussion page that we should just ignore the Wikipedia rules.

I didn't take this to an admin because I was hoping that a word to the wise is sufficient. Apparently it is not. Now that you've taken it to an admin, I'd like to see it resolved.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Wikipedia principles can't reasonably require us to allow the gratuitous, indiscriminate use of words and expressions which have been recognized by consensus as being derogatory or pejorative — such as "anchor baby" in this case — does not constitute open defiance or contempt of those principles. Objecting to arguments which appear to support such extreme interpretations of the rules is not the same as insulting the integrity of the person advancing those arguments. Feeling that a particular interpretation of the rules is simply wrong, even without being able to back up that feeling with chapter-and-verse cites to those rules (or other rules), is not the same as conceding that one's feelings constitute a reckless, groundless personal attack. And suggesting that WP:IAR may well apply in the case of unreasonable rules (or unreasonable interpretations thereof) is not the same as saying that we should just ignore all the rules. I'm very sorry that we seem to have reached an impasse, or an inability to communicate, on this topic — which is why I hope we can get some outside perspective, or an authoritative interpretation, so we can all accept a consensus of some sort and move on. Richwales (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't even attempt to offer an alternative interpretation of the rules - so your basis for calling the interpretation being used "extreme" seems to be that you don't like it. And your personal politics are not a sufficient basis to decide whether the article should ignore rules.

You can feel that my application of the rules is wrong, but that doesn't give you the right to bring up wikilawyering. There's quite a lot I feel about the way you are editing, but I've not used such language about you. And, for the record, there is no consensus that Anchor baby is being used in this article in a derogatory and gratuitous fashion. Consensus certainly hasn't settled whether it is derogatory - the article discussion page seems to have settled only that some people consider it derogatory. You've been told to go to the discussion page of the appropriate policy page (I'm thinking the NPOV notice board would be a good place) and ask about this. You refuse to do so.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I read over the whole set of threads. Not only did Richwales do nothing wrong, his relatively saint-like patience should get him a barnstar. Milo 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

Can you extended the page protection on Talk:Bambi and Bambi? As soon as they were lifted, the IP vandal returned to hit both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Userfication please

Yo, per [[11]], I'd like the article userfied to my account please, if it's not too much trouble. I am an editor in good standing with experience in returning BLP's to the articlespace (cf. Aliza Shvarts). I intend on stripping the article to its references and a brief description, and returning it immediately to the articlespace. Skomorokh 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Finished: should meet WP:N and WP:BLP without difficulty now. Thanks for your swift assistance, Skomorokh 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RIP Bottom Dollar

RIP Bottom Dollar, forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.187.20 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected Illegal immigration to the United States

Hiya. I didn't see an expiry on the full pp, it's been a while, and they seemed ready; so, I unprotected it. Definitely feel free to re-protect and/or trout if needed. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. CIreland (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Winks

I have a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy. I tagged Winxclub for deletion, started to check and realised it was redirect worthy but got called away. When I got back, you had deleted it. I felt a bit sorry for the 11 year old who had written it. Could you please undelete her version underneath the redirect and let her know? - Sgroupace (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst it may spare the feelings of the editor in question, I see no purpose in undeleting the article history; it was incomprehensible. CIreland (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a text I use in some cases for children in addition to the standard welcome messages, adjusted and supplemented as needed. "sorry, but I had to delete this article--we're an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. You have to become famous first, then someone will write an article about you. In the meantime, there's lots of things to do here For this case, I just now went there and said "sorry, but Wikipedia had to delete this article, for it was incomplete--it took me some time just to find out what the series actually was. Please see [[WP:FIRST|our guide to writing Wikipedia articles]], and articles on some of the other shows listed in the article on the [[YTV (TV channel)]], to see how to write a better article on it. But first it might be a good idea to see our advice about getting started: [[WP:CTW| there's lots of things to do here]]"

Not that we are all that likely to get a good article right away, but that will at least explain what was wrong. (& from G on the character names I see it is a notable children's show in Canada.) I approve of helping children, even at Wikipedia. A 5th grader can learn to write a simple article, with some help. DGG (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

AN incidence-User:CENSEI

Hi CIreland. I had a feeling that I did not present my case very well in this case. Therefore, I have inserted a full summary again there. It kind of sounded like I am a big BLP violator, hope it clears things up. Like i mentioned I am not really worried about the outcome, I just wanted to make sure that issues are not misunderstood. Thanks. Docku^Hi 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Care New England

I think we have come up with a more appropriate description and encyclopedia oriented definition of Care New England. I am including it below.

Care New England (CNE) is a health system that serves the southeastern New England community. Members include Women & Infants Hospital, Butler Hospital, Kent Hospital, Care New England Wellness Center, and Care New England Home Health.

About Care New England

Care New England was created in February 1996 in Providence, Rhode Island by founding members Women & Infants Hospital, Butler Hospital, and Kent Hospital.

The Care New England Wellness Centers were opened in February 1999 as a cooperative venture of Care New England, HealthTrax, and Kent Occupational Health. The Wellness Center is located in Warwick, RI.

The Kent County Visiting Nurse Association joined Care New England in June 1999, and changed its name to VNA of Care New England later that year. In 2000, the VNA added HealthTouch, Inc., a private nursing service, to complete Care New England Home Health.

Today, Care New England has almost 6,500 employees serving thousands of patients each day.

John J. Hynes, Esq. is the President and CEO of Care New England. Jonathan K. Farnum is the chairman of the 25 member board.

Slogan: “We Touch Your Life Like No One Else.”

Please let me know if we can put this back up. Thank you, Jlg3978 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sup3rior

The other user has been unblocked and is offering to negotiate a solution with him; I am considering accepting his third unblock to allow them to seek a third opinion, which is what they seem to want to do. Would you have any reservations about this? Daniel Case (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

please help

You wrote something on VegitaU's talk page. Please look at AIV and remove the report on me. Veggy's being very aggressive and confrontational. Presumptive (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Agenda vandalism

User:Ludwigs2 is vandalizing Template:Sexual orientation on the grounds of his own personal agenda. There is controversy of what is considered a "sexual orientation" and what is considered a "sexual identity", for example asexuality. In the recent past the template was separated into two separate listing "sexual orientations" and "sexual identity". In an effort to remain neutral i have combined the two sections as "sexual orientations and identities", leaving the decision up to the reader and not taking support on one particular view point or another. What makes me come to the conclusion that User:Ludwigs2 has an underlying agenda is that he was the one who created the two separate listings, previously everything was all under "sexual orientations" then he made the separate "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" sections, putting his view point above others, and being un-neutral. And now he is reverting my combination edit, the one with "sexual orientations and identities", to a more recent edition of his, which only includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, completely removing all reference of asexuality, zoosexuality, and other sexual orientations and identities. I personally think [s]he has a personal agenda to not allow these other forms of sexual expressions to even be in the same listing, because as i said, all i originally did was combine the two listings that [s]he create in the first place, because there was, as i said, controversy about certain terms being a sexual orientation or sexual identity. Like i said, his previous edit puts one opinion above the other, which does not hold a neutral point of view.

• This was the edit is similar to how the template originally appeared: [12]
• This is User:Ludwigs2's "sexual orientations" and "sexual identity" edit, with separate listings: [13]
• This is my "sexual orientations and identities", the one made in an effort to remain neutral, the only difference between mine and his is i combined the groups: [14]
• And this is User:Ludwigs2's retaliation edit, were he removes every sexual orientation and identity, only leaving heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, which intern contradicts his previous edit: [15]

I have already reverted his vandalisms in the past and was temporary banned for reverting them. I am not interested in being banned again for doing the right thing so could you please take care of this issue, you can further read the current talk, here, and gain more incite on the issue. Thanx for your time. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You should start a request for comment on the template talk page to get the opinions of more editors. I'm not seeing anything I would describe as vandalism; a bit of edit-warring maybe. If the edit-warring gets out of hand then admins can start thinking about blocking but otherwise this a content dispute and can only be solved by discussion. CIreland (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

House of Lords Act 1999

Hi. I noticed you have been trying to do some format fixes on the House of Lords Act 1999 article. Are you trying to remove the extra spacing at the top of the page? If so, it seems to be a fault on the {{Infobox UK Legislation}} template as it affects every article it appears on. I have tried fixing the template previously without success, but I will make another attempt when I have time later today. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to fix that but, as you can see, I too had no luck. CIreland (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of CENSEI and Croctotheface

Not that I'm looking to change the ruling as it is clear both users were edit warring and both seem to be aware of the 3RR, so the blocks were certainly justified. I just have a question about the content of the ruling. In the explanation for CENSEI's block you said that "Parts of the reverts have a possible BLP defence",[16] but can the BLP defense be used on an article that is about a person that has been dead for 8 years? Bob Casey, Sr. died in 2000 and the content that was removed seems to be solely about Casey... I know Wikipedia allows some fudge room on BLP for people that died recently, but 8 years seems a bit much to me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, when CENSEI brought up BLP and Gamaliel seemed to imply that BLP was at least a plausible issue I assumed the subject was living and didn't check for a death date. However, apart from Casey, the material in question (the bit partially sourced to dailyhowler.com) also attributes statements to "Conventions organizers". When I said "possible BLP defence" I had in mind Casey and the unnamed organizers. Regardless, even were Casey living, the BLP defence seems pretty weak to me. CIreland (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. Since the "convention organizers" were unnamed, I'd assumed BLP wasn't necessarily applicable to them. I'd also made the assumption based on your spelling of "defence" that you probably weren't American, so weren't familiar with American politics so probably weren't aware that Casey was deceased. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How often do we see this happen? The light that burns twice as bright....

Answer Two steps forward, one step back ;)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Thank you for the protection to G. Simon Harak (19121*DN (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

GOUSA

Thanks for looking at Grand Orient of the United States. Were all of those three criticisms beyond the pale? I originally raised a point about the founders "making fraudulent claims", which I'd deleted.

Isn't the claim that they have fewer lodges than the organisationclaims a legitimate criticism/question? The second point about "GOOFUS" is embarassing and doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but is it really affected by BLP? (I'm glad it's gone, though.) The third point about not taking "obligations" (the Masonic term for oaths) seriously is close to the bone and would have to be carefully worded, but surely a legitimate criticism?

Any way thank you for looking at this.

JASpencer (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that anything sourced only to masonicinfo.com should not be included. It's a personal website with a self-confessed "Anti-Masonry" approach. CIreland (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

masonicinfo is actually very pro-Masonry, and the webmaster is a freemason. It's just a different, Anglo-American type of freemasonry that it's for. Oddly enough there are some very scandalous claims about anti-masonic types. JASpencer (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Regardless, it remains a personal website; anything controversial needs to be sourced to something with newspaper standard reliability - and obviously that's doubly true for a biographical details. CIreland (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for your attention on this. JASpencer (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a highly regarded webpage, cited or linked to on many lodge and grand lodge webpages... and cited in the books and blogs of noted (ie published) masonic scholars. It should be considered a reliable source, even if it is self-published. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi, thank you for placing the semi protection on Jeremy Brett. At the same time I requested protection for that article, I also requested the same for Gary Cooper which has been subjected to far worse tendentious editing by the same user over a much longer period of time. Another admin denied this request saying that it was a "content dispute", and although I pointed out that this was not the case (here) it was denied just the same. Well it wasn't really denied, it was just kind of closed without any reply to my comment. I'm confused by this, as I've very rarely made this type of request and I don't understand why this happened, if it was an oversight or something like that. Would you mind please taking a look at the edit history for Gary Cooper. I'm sorry if this isn't the correct protocol as I'm not sure how to dispute a protection decision, but if you point me in the right direction it would be appreciated. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I put a note on Stifle (talk · contribs)'s talk page. CIreland (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary Cooper etc.

Hi. Rossrs (talk · contribs) dropped a note on my talk page after I responded to his protection request for Jeremy Brett. Because I had agreed to semi-protect the page in response to persistent editing by likely socks of HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rossrs wanted me to look at your decision to decline protection of Gary Cooper. Obviously I'm not going to overturn your decision but I would ask you to look again at the history of Gary Cooper and compare the edits by 92.11.xx.xx - 92.13.xx.xx with the MO of previous socks of HarveryCarter. CIreland (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the IP is adding vandalism. But I won't get in your way if you think differently. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not saying it is vandalism, and I was clear on that point from the beginning. A banned user is not supposed to be making any edits, and when they not only edit, but tendentiously edit that is problem. We may as well not ban people if we're going to tolerate their continued presence as anons. I've never considered this a content dispute or a simple case of vandalism. Rossrs (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

don't delete my page about listing the Bemani pocket games on there own pages

don't

Block of Alex_101

Hi. Please see User_talk:Alex_101#Want_to_be_an_admin.3F and the subsection that follows it. The user has approached me following my offer to nominate people at WT:RFA. His 2006 block log is troublesome, but could be overcome if his record had been unblemished since. However, such a recent block as the one you gave him in June is just too much of a hurdle... unless you (as the blocking admin) had anything positive to say about it. Do you? Cheers --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about the user question. I do remember the edit warring he was blocked for though. I'm afraid there isn't any mitigation to be found there though (quite the reverse, it was all pretty juvenile). See the history of Bad Religion on and around 6 June 2008 if you're interested. Describing good faith edits as vandalism would be bound to be brought up at RfA, I fear. CIreland (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I feared. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my account/talk page

You have recently posted a message on my page about me redirecting my talk page. I did not realize this was happening, nor did I intend for this to happen. How can I make this stop happening? Lucas Brown (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Lucas Brown 42. CIreland (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Lucas Brown 42. Lucas Brown (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the quick work on that db-self request.Cat-five - talk 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And thanks also for the semi-protect on Gary Trauner. BeIsKr (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lilith Astaroth

Sorry if I was annoyed at her, but a prod was removed, although it had expired and the article should have been deleted as the prod had been up for five days. The edit summary said it was removed because she objected to the deletion at the BLP noticeboard [17](?). How is that not 'forum shopping'? `If she hadn't asked, the article would have been deleted like others whose prods have expired. Is the BLP board the place for people to get prods on their article removed when no-one would otherwise have done it? I like to think not. Oh well, there's an AfD now.Sticky Parkin 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your assistance in keeping USS New Jersey (BB-62) vandal free while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Thanks for changing the page protection, even if it was frowned on by the community. I apreciated it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds

Mr. Clouds has issued warnings, threats, claims of vandalism repeatedly on my Talk page, without basis. I have repeatedly asked for 3O on pages -- when one was proffered by Jclemens, CC refused to abide by it. He repeatedly marks his reverts as "minor" and repeatedly adds totally unsourced material to pages. For fun, look at his definition of "recent" in the Dino Rossi page. Every edit I make is sourced, referenced in Ralk where applicable, and so on. I have over 26 years experience online now, and find CC to be in a remarkable 1% whom I would have locked out of CompuServe. Thank you for tending to the nuisance 3RR compalint, which he was gentlemanly enough not to post to my page (although he posted after each single edit in the past). Collect (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Wurzelbacher

Hi, thanks for your merging the edit history of Talk:Joseph Wurzelbacher to Talk:Joe Wurzelbacher. But the previous discussions (like this version) disappear in the new page. Would it be possible to restore the former discussions or do we need to move them to archive? Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are in the page history. If you wish to restore them to the current page, you would have to do so by hand. Alternatively, you could, as you suggest, find the "move revision" i.e. [18] and copy/paste the content to an archive page. CIreland (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the previous discussions at Talk:Joseph Wurzelbacher to Talk:Joe Wurzelbacher/Archive 1. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the information, I really appreciate it. I am archiving the comments on my page. Inclusionist (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. It was just a bit of wiki-history which I would interpret somewhat differently. I may not have been around at the time, but you would likely nowadays consider me one of the "jackasses"; I don't mind, by the way. CIreland (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics

Thank you very much for page protection. Could you also block the IP 122.169.11.242 who vandalized. I am sure that IP will vandalize more pages. Thanks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Already done, but he has a dynamic IP so probably pointless if he is determined to disrupt other pages. CIreland (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned then. Yesterday (17 October), the same person with IP 122.169.14.44 vandalized the same page

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalorean_Catholics&diff=245904894&oldid=245733758) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalorean_Catholics&diff=245910185&oldid=245905014)

Let's see what he does next? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCarthy

I was looking at it from the AFD point of view of "what did the community say", which I read at "no consensus", basically I wasn't even looking at content, just arguments. If you see BLP issues with content, by all means do whatever is necessary to ensure compliance. I will not object to any action you take and will support your judgment. MBisanz ^talk 08:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The wiser choice would be to restore the article, and carte-blanche delete the sections you believe violated BLP requirements and put a note on the talk-page forbidding their being re-inserted. Deleting an entire article because you believe it has errors is a bad precedent to set. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That would have left a blank article so the distinction is moot. If you can create an article on this individual that is properly neutral then I encourage you to do so. CIreland (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article could have just been, savagely, cut down, would you object to an article being created/restored with just the first two sentences of text from the last version (with references) and the first picture. This would remove the problems from the previous article, could be protected if necessary, while retaining an article as per the no consensus AFD. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

@Davewild: as I said earlier, I have no problem at all with a balanced article on the subject and would encourage anyone with knowledge of this subject to create one. CIreland (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So I am ok to do as I suggested? I just want to be sure my action would be ok as I do not want to be accused of wheel warring or violating the BLP special enforcement arbcom ruling. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. I deleted that version of the article and its history; a brand new balanced article would be a separate issue. CIreland (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have created such an article at Patrick M. McCarthy and will keep it on my watchlist. I think that if editors start re-entering the coatrack material then it can be protected for a necessary period. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. You didn't actually need my permission or anything though; you could have just gone ahead and created it. CIreland (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was steady and constructive at BLPN, cutting the article down to a referenced stub (with protection if necessary) is usual action and would have let discussion on a merge/deletion going on. I don't see the emergency. Cenarium ^Talk 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: The usual action is deal firmly and immediately with BLP violations. We should err on the side of caution - we can recreate articles with far greater ease than we can undo harm to individuals. Review can be requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. CIreland (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to deal firmly and immediately with BLP violations. I meant I don't see the emergency to delete and kill the discussion in the same time while we have better alternatives, as you can see by now. Cenarium ^Talk 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess we have differing perspectives on this. I would say that there's no compelling reason to retain such a problematic article when a balanced version can be so quickly created - as Davewild just did - and as happened last time I summarily deleted a BLP. CIreland (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being so unclear. It's exactly what I meant by satisfying alternatives. Unless you think that deleting the history is important ? One simple edit would have achieved the same result. Cenarium ^Talk 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As far deleting the history goes, I do actually consider it a beneficial side-effect but not in itself a factor in the deletion. I considered stubbing the article but that raised a few additional problems: Suppose I stubbed it and, given the recent AfD and discussion, logged it at WP:BLPLOG - (a) that would have been extremely likely to make other editors highly reticent about editing it further (b) the issue of "admin involvement" is a muddy one; stubbification could be argued to be a content edit and I wished to avoid such grey areas (c) I didn't know enough about the article subject to wish to put my name to any revision, no matter how short and inoffensive. You'll notice that when I logged the deletion I was careful to say that it did not stop anyone from creating a balanced replacement. CIreland (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Were sighted revisions enabled, I would have stubbed it and restrict sighting :) I also am afraid sometimes to cut down an article like this and I understand your point, but I still think it's better than deletion, and this kind of admin intervention can only be beneficial. I don't think you would have needed BLPSE for that, it's not against the AFD result (nor a merge would be) and semi-protecting, or even fully-protecting, an article for blp violations doesn't require this, hopefully. It also creates problem with GFDL to recreate an article based on deleted content. And the old talk is lost. Cenarium ^Talk 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a month, I find I still agree with Sherurcij. I would really appreciate CIreland spelling out the specific objections they had to specific passages, on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain why you deleted the article on Patrick M. McCarthy? You can respond here. I will look for your explanation here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was not a biography of the subject, as it claimed to be. A biography should be a balanced summary of an individual's entire life and, when appropriate, work. This article was focussed almost entirely on one aspect and even, at the time of deletion, included a number of statements of dubious relevance to the subject. CIreland (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

that's not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for editing. Furthermore, i don't even see the need of that. I asked at the afd, and others ask just above, what exactly did you think violated BLP? His role in Guantanamo is the most historically important thing in his career, quite probably the only significant thing in his career, will be what is permanently remembered, and deserves emphasis. BLP says, in fact, that we do not emphasise parts of the career that are not related to notability, not the other way round. The proper balance here is to discuss what he's notable for, with only the most basic personal background. BLPSE does not give you the right to delete an article after consensus for deletion has been not found by a fellow admin at the community discussion at AfD. Looking at the deleted article, I would indeed have written it in a different style, without the boxed quotes, just a plain running text-- WP should look like an encyclopedia. Butthat too is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would make three points:

• I was far from being the only person to think there were serious BLP issues with the article.
• On the question of deleting vs reducing to a stub, Cenarium and I discussed the pros and cons of this above; neither is an ideal solution but either is preferable to leaving the article as it was.
• Take a look at the last deleted revision. What fraction of the article main text is intended to cast the subject in a poor light? That alone is, I would contend, sufficient grounds for deletion but there are others (issues of relevance and guilt by association, for example).

CIreland (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given myself a month to think about this.

• First, let me state that it seemed to me that your comments above suggested you did not believe my contributions were in good faith. For the record, every single contribution I have made to the wikipedia has been in good faith, starting from my very first contribution.

• If I implied I thought that the article was not created in good faith, then I apologise; that was not my opinion. I did think that it the content of the article was not balanced, but I did not think that it necessarily followed that it was purposefully unbalanced. I also thought that it was presenting a particular agenda; that doesn't necessarily mean that there was intent to push any particular perspective; sometimes articles simply develop that way, especially when then subject is contentious. Furthermore, I think that some of the edit summaries of editors removing some of the contentious material were inappropriately harsh; I would certainly not have used phrases such as "specious" or "hack job".

• You write, above,

  I was far from being the only person to think there were serious BLP issues with the article.

• In saying that, I simply meant to make clear to DGG that I was not a lone or maverick voice.

• But isn't this the wrong standard by which you measure your exercise of your administrator powers? If I may paraphrase you: "I think some people may agree with this exercise of my administrator powers.". Shouldn't your yardstick, for actions you take without any prior discussion be: "I am confident practically all my fellow administrators will agree with my exercise of authority."

• Firstly, I would value equally the opinions of the larger community, rather than placing any intrinsically higher value on the opinions of administrators. That being said, I was under no illusion that deleting the article would not be controversial for a number of reasons, some legitimate, some more wiki-political. However, the essence of WP:BLP is that when there is doubt about a biography, we err on the side of caution with respect to the subject. The specific wording of the arbitration committe decision which I cited as legitimating the deletion says:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy

Note that the excerpt does not enjoin adminstrators to seek full consenus prior to deletion. Of course, the decision can be challenged after the fact and material restored if there is consensus to do so. I encouraged anyone who wished to challenge the deletion to do so at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. That nobody did so I interpreted as indicating that there was not widespread dissatisfaction with the deletion. You may still challenge the deletion at that venue, should you wish to.

• When an administrator has a concern, over an article, and that does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, it is my understanding that they should take off their adminstrator hat, and use the same tools and procedures for raising their concern as any other contributor. Please explain to me if you believe I have that wrong.

• I believe we would differ on what would be the appropriate actions for an adminstrator to take in such circumstances. The arbitration committee has clarified the responsibilities of adminstrators with respect to WP:BLP in two cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, both of which, in my interpretation, mandate adminstrators to take action to enfore the BLP policy over and above the deletion of articles under WP:CSD#G10.

Let me tell you something about who I am. I believe in intellectual honesty and responsible behavior. I own up when I realize I made a mistake, or when I have a mistake I made drawn to my attention. And this is a standard I would like the call on the other wikipedia contributors to live up to. Let me ask you frankly, do you agree that this is a reasonable standard for us to expect those whom the community entrusts with administrator authority to aim for? Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that is a reasonable standard. I would also add that, whilst I do not currently believe that the deletion was mistaken, I am open to arguments that it was in error. If there should occur a community consensus to undo the deletion and to restore the article to its former state then I would acknowledge the error and, if necessary, seek to amend my understanding of policy. It would hardly be my first adminstrative error; surprisingly many administrative decisions are difficult. CIreland (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you se the point.. The BLP questions were raised at the AfD. the AfD was closed as non-consensus. Using the BLP special powers to override a community closure is simply wrong, period. When we use the special powers, we do so because we have good reason in our own judgments to know that our views will have consensus. Of course, one can think this even with the greatest good will and care, and still be wrong, for which we have deletion review. But in this case you knew ahead of time that your view did not have community consensus. Consensus was asked for deletion, and it was not obtained. To use the admin power here is wrong. it's completely opposite to the role an admin should take, of enforcing the express or implied will of the community. But since a stub article was reinserted since by agreement, I do not see the need to pursue this particular decision further. DGG (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I do see the need to pursue it, or at least, I would like to explore your opinion and hear your advice; I am sincere when I say that I will seek to reverse the deletion if it was a misjudgement.

• I don't agree with your characterization of events; people argued, in my opinion correctly, that the subject was notable enough for an article. I never disagreed with that, and was at pains to make clear that deleting the article did not mean there should be no article. There should be an article on this subject; just not the article as it had developed. I agreed both with the keep voters that the subject was notable and with those concerned that the article was problematic from a BLP standpoint. I think the view that the subject is notable and should have a balanced article is in line with community consenus. I also think that the view that unbalanced articles on notable subjects should be replaced is broadly agreed upon. In this case, what I did disagree with was the closing administrator so I consulted him (as one does when one disagrees with an AfD closure) and his reply did not seem inconsistent my perspective (see WP:BLPLOG for links). If he had said, "No, do not delete this, I do not think there is a BLP problem here" then I would not have.
• I understand that you would rather I had rewritten or stubbed the article but there former requires a degree of acquaintance with the subject matter of which I could not be confident and the latter (if enforced) is just deletion but without the "clean slate" effect.
• It's agreed that the subject is notable, that has never been the issue here. What is your opinion of whether the article was balanced? CIreland (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of "not seeing the need to pursue this further" was that, though I was not happy with the actions taken, I did see the need from my side to make further fuss about them with respect to this article, as the issue was moot, not that I was unwilling to discuss them. Re-reading the material, I see that your statement at the Special enforcement log. I think it was totally wrong to do that, and perhaps might, after all, be worth making an issue over. If this is the way BLPSE is going to be used, the policy should be revoked altogether, because it has permitted you to use your personal individual view of what constituted defamatory content with any plausible base in the article. BLPSE is intended for emergency situations to prevent damage, or where something is insoluble otherwise, as in the protection of the Palin article. I think the community feeling, and Wikipedia policy about unbalanced articles is pretty clear, and is the exact opposite of what you say it is: which is that material should be added (and if necessary) removed in order to balance them. We should not delete articles for failure to observe NPOV--we have the NPOV and BLP noticeboards to address them. It is difficult to discuss this further so as to be generally understood without discussing the details of the article you deleted. But since you and I at least can see it, and other admins, I challenge you to specific what part of it violated BLP. I have re-read it, and not found any unsupported negative statement about him. Except for material in quotations, I have not found any negative material at all-- except of course the conclusions which a reader may choose to draw from his participation. But that's the reader, not Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• CIreland, I am afraid you are unaware of how highly confrontational, and contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the wikipedia's policies your approach to the exercise of authority can seem to those at the receiving end. Yes, you are authorized to delete articles, without prior warning or discussion -- in certain circumstances. But, I believe you have a clear obligation to offer a civil, meaningful explanation, afterwards.
• I contributed most of the material in the article on Captain McCarthy. If that material actually lapses from policy I believe I am entitled to know how. I believe I am entitled to have my lapses explained to me with sufficient clarity that I can avoid making that kind of lapse in future.
• So far you have offered practically zero clues as to what triggered your concern about the article -- other than it didn't seem balanced to you.
• The policy on biographies of living persons addresses two very important goals, which I have absolutely no problem agreeing should authorize administrators taking action without prior discussion. And the policy also addresses another goal, which never used to be regarded as ground for taking action without prior discussion, and which I really wonder whether they should be grounds for action without prior discussion.
• Protecting the subjects of articles from obvious, actual libel, or slander, which slipped in through a wikipedia contributor's carelessness, or which was maliciously inserted by a malicious vandal should be grounds for an administrator taking action without prior discussion -- because the consequences to the subject are serious.
• Similarly, protecting the wikipedia from leaving actual libel or slander in article space, so those being libelled or slandered can sue the project, is also grounds for an administrator taking action without prior discussion -- because the consequences to the wikipedia project are serious.
• But the third goal of the policy, it seems to me, is a case of "which of these things is not like the others". The third goal is aimed at trimming cruft, bumpf, material that is not encyclopedic. Ordinary users can place a {{db}} on articles they think are cruft, if they think they match a WP:CSD. Adminstrators are authorized to delete articles, on sight, if they think they match a WP:CSD.
• I know it is not your position that the article matched a WP:CSD.
• I urge you to consider reserving the deletion without warning for real emergencies, like the insertion of actual slander.
• You acknowledged that Captain McCarthy merits coverage. What about the references the article used? Is there any reference you feel is a bad reference?
• You have been asked, something like half a dozen times or more, to be specific about what triggers your concern that the article is not balanced.
• I think you may be unaware that your answers, or rather your non-answers, could be seen as a big Foxtrot-Oscar, as a form of bullying, of throwing around your authority, and daring others to do something about it. I think you may be unaware that yours is highly confrontational approach, and one I feel is extremely damaging to the wikipedia, both for the ill-will it triggers, but also for the atrocious example you are setting. You are an administrator. Less experienced contributors should be able to look to you for an example of behavior that strictly complies with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I should apologise for not responding to the query Geo Swan made here; because it was followed by a consecutive edit to by the same person, I mistakenly assumed, when I looked at my talk page history, that both edits were to the same section. I didn't purposefully ignore it.

• I felt that the article served to advance a single thesis: The regime and treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo is morally dubious and the subject of the article is implicated in this.

• For example, there was a short section which referred to the suicides of four detainees. It was followed by a quotation from the subject on the matter. The effect, intended or not, was to imply guilt by association. It may be that the subject does bear some reponsibility in the matter, but we need a source to state that - not imply it ourselves by textual juxtaposition.

• Another example was the section concerned with the trimming of facial hair following which was a quotation of a facetious remark by the subject. The effect was to imply that the subject does not take religious practices seriously. Again, this may be true, but we shouldn't be trying to advance that position ourselves; a secondary source should be used that interprets the primary source and we should report that interpretation.

• Some people that commented on the article called it a "coatrack". For example, at [19], Magog the Ogre, Tom Harrison, Hurmata and Looie496 all used this term to describe the article. What is meant by it is that the article is ostensibly about McCarthy but it is really about Guantanamo Bay. The material that causes this kind of concern is not necessarily asserted to be completely unsuitable, it is simply asserted to be inappropriate for this article. My assessment of the label of "coatrack" was that a large proportion of the material was about Guantanamo Bay rather than about McCarthy; some of the quotations (for example, the NPR Interview section) was not about McCarthy, except insofar as he said it, it was about Guantanamo Bay.

• There was also a problem of relative weight. Sometimes it may be legitimate to discuss a closely related topic, for the of providing context, for example. Outside the very first sentence, most of the rest of the article (excepting the NPR interview section) follows the same pattern: statements about Guantanamo Bay, followed by quotations from McCarthy or details of his opinions. Taken separately or combined with other material, the effect may not be great and may be a matter for reader interpretation, but the compounding effect of repetition of the same theme makes the thesis (guilt by association) clear.

• Above, I asked a rhetorical question of DGG, "What fraction of the article main text is intended to cast the subject in a poor light?" I regret now the use of "intended" as that implies malice and I do not think that is the case. It's also may not be as rhetorical as I once thought. I believe that an overwhelming proportion of the material in the article casts the subject in a poor light; if a negative tone is truly deserved then I think we ought to demand multiple substantial secondary sources to jusify such an approach.

For the above reasons I thought that the article was not a balanced biography; I'm afraid I didn't really think it was a biography at all.

I have stated all these concerns previously, although not all in the same location, nor in equal detail and I am sorry that I did not give such a summary earlier.

It would also follow that if my assessment of the neutrality of the article was substantially incorrect then deleting the article was a mistake.

I do not agree with DGG's interpretation that "We should not delete articles for failure to observe NPOV", I interpret the badlydrawnjeff decision as saying the opposite, although, of course, I would agree that it depends on the extent to which the article is unbalanced as to whether deletion is appropriate:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy [BLP].

I have been reading that as saying that NPOV is a valid rationale for summary deletion.

Finally, Geo Swan also asked if I thought any of the references were bad. I did not see any reference that, at least on first inspection, seemed poor; some references are now no longer functional, however, but I don't remember them being so in September.

I was also going to say something substantive about your dissatisfaction with my approach and manner but anything detailed I might say, no matter how apologetic, would probably not come across how I would wish. I am sorry, however, that I have annoyed you.

CIreland (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right that your approach to BLP and mine have little in common. I apply it strictly , but narrowly, to unsourced contentious material, or to isolated negative facts unrelated to someone's notability. I do not apply it to the overall point of view that may be given by sourced material, or that the overall direction of someone primary career engagement may be viewed by some as notable. There is no unsourced material in that article, and his main notability is the legal involvement with GB. I point out that to those who agrees with a widely held non-splinter US position on GB, the facts given reflect positively upon him. You have continued to give no specifics; I can only speculate upon your motives. For the reason I mentioned, it cannot be political bias.

Following your reasoning, I could delete every article on every member of various political parties in various countries, for their votes and opinions as reported cast them in a negative light as viewed by most of the world.

Your general reading of BLP turns WP into a field where each of the 1600 of us could delete whatever had a tone we disapproved of. If that is what the BLP policy is interpreted to do, it's a formula for chaos and prejudice, and it's time we either explicitly limited it or rid of it and relied on plain V. However, I am not the least surprised it has been perverted this over-literal way--I am among those who predicted just this from the over general wording and the reliance upon individual admin action rather than consensus. I was not very experienced here at the time, but still I could see where it would go. Please don't read the "you" as personal- -I do not think your views unique its just that you just happen to be here at the moment. and you did ask me for further discussion.

for the benefit of anyone coming here, there's a similar discussion about similar actions on a different set of articles at ANB. ANB DGG (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick query in response: I don't fully understand what you are asking for when you say "gave no specifics". I admit I tried to be circumspect and not directly quote the article but instead refer to short sections of the text and explain what I thought the problems were; what kind of response are you looking for when you say "specifics"?