Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)

message: The second vote should be reopened, rather than starting a third one. Starting a third vote puts the delete side at a disadvantage, in effect rewarding Cyde's inappropriate closure on the last vote-- a kind of move that typically gets people de-sysopped if someone wants to make an issue out of it. 172 | Talk 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Would you be able to copy the votes from the second thread and paste them onto the third? Or contact the people who chimed in on the second but have not posted a response in the third? 172 | Talk 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think it would be better to do neither. There is already a dispute on the "vote-stacking and canvassing" itself that caused the mess at the previous AfD, and surely none of us want to see this repeat itself. Furthermore this AfD will go through its full 120-hours voting period, so those who are really interested in this article should have done so by then. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the dispute, I asked you to do it. If you are contacting people on the strick criterion of having chimed in on the last AfD thread, no one would question your motive. You'd clearly be acting as an admin taking care of a 'housekeeping' matter and only 'housekeeping.' Cyde abused his admin powers and disrupted the last vote. Someone should clean up the mess. You're the best person for the job since (as far as I know at the moment), you're not associated with either the "keep" or "delete" camps. 172 | Talk 11:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * Looks like a moot point at this time now (see below). - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)]]

message: A quick look at what links to the AfD shows that  has been vote stacking. All users contacted appear to have voted delete on the previous AfD. --waffle iron talk 13:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can't be entirely accurate. I got spammed and I had not voted in any of the previous AFDs, although I did vote (and no more) on the review. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I got a message on my talk page as well.  I'm guessing it's because I voted delete on the most recent (prematurely closed) AfD.  I'm not a big fan of such things, but does it violate policy?  In any case, this makes me think twice about contributing this time, and ironically makes me less likely to "help" the person who put the message on my talk page in the first place.  Whereas I would have run into this new AfD eventually (I do a bunch of AfD stuff) and would have voted for sure then.  Hm, this is a quandary.  But like I said, I still don't know whether I should contribute to this AfD given the vote-stacking that is going on.  At the end of the day, what is the policy about this kind of thing?!?--Deville (Talk) 15:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I was spammed as well, however I had already voted.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this was an intentional act to harm the credibility of the VfD.--RWR8189 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, checkuser has already confirmed that the anon spammer(s) were all merecat, the person who actually started the AfD in the first place.(see wp:an/i for highlights)--64.12.116.8 15:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just coincidentally I found a case of "vote stacking" in another AfD today.  It was only 4 users, not 20 plus, but is this a new prinicple or what? Thatcher131 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think vote stacking implies a sizable number of notifications such as in this case (33). 4 seems pretty harmless. --waffle iron talk 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems we're making "vote stacking" the new crime de jour at Wikipedia. Speaking for myself, I was alerted to this vote, but am quite capable of applying my own understanding to an issue. Some of us try to avoid aggravating ourselves by watching articles where we know a core of editors stand ready to advance their views and harass into silence though who disagree. I am grateful to those who alert me to important debates on subject of interest. Some people (especially the anti-Bush POV warriors) watch Bush articles like hawks, trying to advance a highly POV political agenda that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia in which Jimbo (for one) has declared that NPOV to be a "non-negotiable" Wikipedia policy. How dare you people who are raving about "meatpuppetry" imply  that I or any other regular editor is a pawn of people you disagree with? I am more than disturbed by the attempts to stifle opposition and judge and throw out Wikipedians' opinions under the new rubric of "vote stacking." -- Cecropia 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering that the vote was restarted, being notified of a new vote is a courtesy.  Also, I don't think the evidence that the IP was merecat is very compelling.  In fact, the talk page has three users listed as the possible sockpuppet master. --Tbeatty 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look further and read the CheckUser, the other accounts are accounts Merecat has used in the past, one of which is banned indefinately. --waffle iron talk 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a vote, so there's no question of "counting" or not.  If you state an intelligent argument that has basis in Wikipedia policy, then people will read it an consider it, whether or not you register an account.  If you just take a stand without explaining your reasoning, you're likely to be ignored, whether or not you register an account. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, if the anon texan is merecat, and merecat is rex, and rex was 216.153.214.94, then there's still something strange going on here--64.12.116.8 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: apparently 216.239.38.136 is a cellphone based webcrawler, operated by google--64.12.116.8 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't understand the concern.  216.153 is ChoiceOne Communications and 216.239 is google.  Just because they have the same first octal doesn't mean they're related. Thatcher131 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can register an account anyway, cellphones don't usually have the ability to store cookies, so you'd never be able to log in--64.12.116.8 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.12.116.8, I'm not on a cellphone - I'm at my desk on a PC. And how do you get so much info about everyone, aren't you just AOL anon yourself? Aren't there more than a few banned vandals from AOL? Perhaps a checkuser should be done against you - whatever that is. 216.239.38.136 19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite impossible, unless there's some sort of google based ISP that no one has ever heard of--64.12.116.8 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I should clarify, my PC is a laptop and I am on a wireless service. Could that account for the aalysis you are have landed on? You shure seem to have a lot of facts about internet service - why don't you have an user account here. Are you a "sockpuppet? Are you BigDaddy777? 216.239.38.136 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sorry rex, that's not how it works, unless your laptop magically connected to a cellphone--64.12.116.8 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  and why do you keep saying "Cellphone"? That amkes it soun like cheating - which is a personal attack. Please explain why you say cellphone. 216.239.38.136 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, mobile phone then, or  cellular phone? same thing--64.12.116.8 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 64.12.116.8, now you address me as "Rex"? Is that supposed to be an insult? Is User:Rex a banned user? 216.239.38.136 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just find it interesting that you chose this exact moment, and this exact page to pick up your cellphone, and start editing on--64.12.116.8 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, if you have a problem with User:Rex, then I can understand why you are watching for issues, but why accuse me? Have I harmed you? Has User:Rex harmed you? You seem to do a lot of finger pointing yourself. It's true that I am an IP editor, but so are you. Based on what I see on this page, you could be making up stories for no reason. What standing do you have? Why should you get to make accusations? Are you secretly Jimbo or some other wiki leader in disguise? I think you should reveal your ID here - that is, if you are going to insinuate about others. 216.239.38.136 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But who decides which "arguments" (votes) count? I "voted" and I cited 3 WP policies. Doesn't that make my "vote" more relevant than long off-topic  ramblings? 216.239.38.136 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like there's a lot of bickering and fighting here. It might be better to sit on the sidelines quietly. Who's in charge of this discussion? Who's the moderator? Sysop? 216.239.38.136 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moderator?  You are new around here.  This is Tombstone, Arizona and the Earps and Clantons are taking aim. Thatcher131 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sysops involved, 216 - none of us could be said to be "in charge". Surprising at it may seem, the final decision is made by... whoever takes it upon themself to make it. The idea is that, if the discussion isn't derailed, the proper course of action becomes apparent. If you cite WP policies, then yes, what you say is more relevant and more likely to influence the outcome than off-topic ramblings. Replying to specific points made by those with whom you disagree is helpful, too. GTBacchus(talk) 19:55, May 4, 2006 (UTC)
I might be new, but I catch on quick. $10 says that User:Prometheuspan is the same person as banned user User:BigDaddy777. Same M.O. - both focus on disruption and make accusations, both from AOL. I looked at PP's contributions - they're like 95% arguing, talk page spam and reverts.216.239.38.136 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *IP addresses are actually less private than usernames.  Usernames can only be examined by a checkuser procedure at WP:RFCU which has very strict rules to prevent abuse and only a few high-level admins have that access.  The IP address will give us your internet provider and in some cases your city.  I don't know what #64 is getting at; I think he assumes that since your IP address and a known address used by User:Rex071404 have the same first octal (216) you must be getting service from the same company and therefore you could be Rex is disguise.  But I think that is incorrect as the two numbers actually belong to different ISPs and the fact that the first digit it the same means nothing.  (In fact, 64 is also the first number of an ISP in Canada that has a lot of sockpuppets attacking articles on Candian politics).  Yes, #64 is an AOL user and I would greatly prefer if he/she would log in so I know who I am talking to.  Regarding registration, if this debate is the only reason you are here it probably won't matter since decisions are made on the basis of community consensus (not exactly a democracy and not exactly voting) and people who come here for a single issue are not usually viewed as contributing to the community consensus.  If you plan to stick around and edit more articles that interest you then you should certainly register.  It will make more more private and it will associate you with your edit history which (as long as you are not disruptive in some way) will add to your credibility over time. Thatcher131 20:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *And one final note to #64, there are high speed wireless services that connect direct to a wireless network via a PC card.  So the fact that #216's ISP resolves to a cell service is not unusual at all. Thatcher131 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *but it's not an ISP at all, it's a gateway for cellphone based browsers--64.12.116.8 20:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: my cellphone, which I've used in the past to browse wikipedia, my contributions, on 'your' ip, several months back, literally the same ip, which makes your wifi claim pretty hard to swallow--64.12.116.8 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're both anonymous. Pot<-->Kettle.  Either one or both of you could be known vandals and trolls who have deliberately avoiding logging on for the purpose of being disrupting.  Either one or both of you could be perfectly reasonable people who don't feel like registering.  In fact, you could be the same person playing a complicated game with the rest of us.  That's why logging in is a good idea.  Regarding the article itself, yes, Nescio and PPan are on one side of the debate, and the article is such a piece of trash that I frankly don't want to waste 5 more minutes of day posting a 3RR complaint.  You can do it if you want at WP:3RR, although the proper format is tricky for new users.  Either way I'm done.  Enjoy the rest of your day. Thatcher131 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote stacking already 

message: If I sign up for a user account, will my vote count here? 216.239.38.136 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a vote, so there's no question of "counting" or not.  If you state an intelligent argument that has basis in Wikipedia policy, then people will read it an consider it, whether or not you register an account.  If you just take a stand without explaining your reasoning, you're likely to be ignored, whether or not you register an account. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, if the anon texan is merecat, and merecat is rex, and rex was 216.153.214.94, then there's still something strange going on here--64.12.116.8 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: apparently 216.239.38.136 is a cellphone based webcrawler, operated by google--64.12.116.8 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't understand the concern.  216.153 is ChoiceOne Communications and 216.239 is google.  Just because they have the same first octal doesn't mean they're related. Thatcher131 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can register an account anyway, cellphones don't usually have the ability to store cookies, so you'd never be able to log in--64.12.116.8 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.12.116.8, I'm not on a cellphone - I'm at my desk on a PC. And how do you get so much info about everyone, aren't you just AOL anon yourself? Aren't there more than a few banned vandals from AOL? Perhaps a checkuser should be done against you - whatever that is. 216.239.38.136 19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite impossible, unless there's some sort of google based ISP that no one has ever heard of--64.12.116.8 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I should clarify, my PC is a laptop and I am on a wireless service. Could that account for the aalysis you are have landed on? You shure seem to have a lot of facts about internet service - why don't you have an user account here. Are you a "sockpuppet? Are you BigDaddy777? 216.239.38.136 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sorry rex, that's not how it works, unless your laptop magically connected to a cellphone--64.12.116.8 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  and why do you keep saying "Cellphone"? That amkes it soun like cheating - which is a personal attack. Please explain why you say cellphone. 216.239.38.136 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, mobile phone then, or  cellular phone? same thing--64.12.116.8 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 64.12.116.8, now you address me as "Rex"? Is that supposed to be an insult? Is User:Rex a banned user? 216.239.38.136 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just find it interesting that you chose this exact moment, and this exact page to pick up your cellphone, and start editing on--64.12.116.8 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, if you have a problem with User:Rex, then I can understand why you are watching for issues, but why accuse me? Have I harmed you? Has User:Rex harmed you? You seem to do a lot of finger pointing yourself. It's true that I am an IP editor, but so are you. Based on what I see on this page, you could be making up stories for no reason. What standing do you have? Why should you get to make accusations? Are you secretly Jimbo or some other wiki leader in disguise? I think you should reveal your ID here - that is, if you are going to insinuate about others. 216.239.38.136 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But who decides which "arguments" (votes) count? I "voted" and I cited 3 WP policies. Doesn't that make my "vote" more relevant than long off-topic  ramblings? 216.239.38.136 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like there's a lot of bickering and fighting here. It might be better to sit on the sidelines quietly. Who's in charge of this discussion? Who's the moderator? Sysop? 216.239.38.136 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moderator?  You are new around here.  This is Tombstone, Arizona and the Earps and Clantons are taking aim. Thatcher131 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sysops involved, 216 - none of us could be said to be "in charge". Surprising at it may seem, the final decision is made by... whoever takes it upon themself to make it. The idea is that, if the discussion isn't derailed, the proper course of action becomes apparent. If you cite WP policies, then yes, what you say is more relevant and more likely to influence the outcome than off-topic ramblings. Replying to specific points made by those with whom you disagree is helpful, too. GTBacchus(talk) 19:55, May 4, 2006 (UTC)
I might be new, but I catch on quick. $10 says that User:Prometheuspan is the same person as banned user User:BigDaddy777. Same M.O. - both focus on disruption and make accusations, both from AOL. I looked at PP's contributions - they're like 95% arguing, talk page spam and reverts.216.239.38.136 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *IP addresses are actually less private than usernames.  Usernames can only be examined by a checkuser procedure at WP:RFCU which has very strict rules to prevent abuse and only a few high-level admins have that access.  The IP address will give us your internet provider and in some cases your city.  I don't know what #64 is getting at; I think he assumes that since your IP address and a known address used by User:Rex071404 have the same first octal (216) you must be getting service from the same company and therefore you could be Rex is disguise.  But I think that is incorrect as the two numbers actually belong to different ISPs and the fact that the first digit it the same means nothing.  (In fact, 64 is also the first number of an ISP in Canada that has a lot of sockpuppets attacking articles on Candian politics).  Yes, #64 is an AOL user and I would greatly prefer if he/she would log in so I know who I am talking to.  Regarding registration, if this debate is the only reason you are here it probably won't matter since decisions are made on the basis of community consensus (not exactly a democracy and not exactly voting) and people who come here for a single issue are not usually viewed as contributing to the community consensus.  If you plan to stick around and edit more articles that interest you then you should certainly register.  It will make more more private and it will associate you with your edit history which (as long as you are not disruptive in some way) will add to your credibility over time. Thatcher131 20:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *And one final note to #64, there are high speed wireless services that connect direct to a wireless network via a PC card.  So the fact that #216's ISP resolves to a cell service is not unusual at all. Thatcher131 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *but it's not an ISP at all, it's a gateway for cellphone based browsers--64.12.116.8 20:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: my cellphone, which I've used in the past to browse wikipedia, my contributions, on 'your' ip, several months back, literally the same ip, which makes your wifi claim pretty hard to swallow--64.12.116.8 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're both anonymous. Pot<-->Kettle.  Either one or both of you could be known vandals and trolls who have deliberately avoiding logging on for the purpose of being disrupting.  Either one or both of you could be perfectly reasonable people who don't feel like registering.  In fact, you could be the same person playing a complicated game with the rest of us.  That's why logging in is a good idea.  Regarding the article itself, yes, Nescio and PPan are on one side of the debate, and the article is such a piece of trash that I frankly don't want to waste 5 more minutes of day posting a 3RR complaint.  You can do it if you want at WP:3RR, although the proper format is tricky for new users.  Either way I'm done.  Enjoy the rest of your day. Thatcher131 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from an IP editor 

message: *Why is there virtually no rebuttal information in this article? Shouldn't that be a duty of the editors here - to not have this article be so lopsided?
Prometheuspan 18:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one cares if you're in league together.  Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions and allowed to agree with anyone else they want.  The same thing applies to people who are voting to delete this article.  How are you a sociologist when you never graduated high school?  The sociologists I know have a Ph.D. at the end of their name. Your comments don't even have anything to do with the discipline.  Why am I even troubling myself by arguing with you is the best question.  --Strothra 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: I am surprised no-one has suggested renaming to Some but not all of the rationales provided by some but not all advocates of the proposed impeachment and or or other legal proceedings against or of George W. Bush (George Walker Bush) the forty third and current President of the United States but he might not be if you don't count those hanging chads in Florida.  Oh well. Rich  Farmbrough 00:46 6  May 2006 (UTC).
:I guess there is a limit on how long a putative title the software will parse? I did not know that.  Incidentally, that would be a pretty sweet title for an article. --Deville (Talk) 03:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative 3

message: *Very Strong Delete POV soapbox. To begin with, impeachment is a process restricted to the legislative branch and can only begin and end there.  There is no serious discussion on The Hill about beginning these processes.  The only lobbyists in DC for impeachment are those representing far left fringe groups. --
Strothra 05:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not notable when these so-called "rationales" are espoused by fringe leftist groups and do not reflect any significant body which can impact the situation in any way.  --Strothra 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment  It couldn't really be made NPOV unless it was removed entirely hence why we're arguing. --
Strothra 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assorted votes.