Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination)

2 points
Just keep this in mind when you people rant about how divisive User opposes GWB is, and how innocent User Right Wing Conspiracy is--152.163.100.7 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Without vote stacking, Keep
 * With vote stacking Delete


 * Leave it to "your side" to claim you would have won if not for "vote stacking". Since 2000, it seems to be the only stategy you have.  Really, it's getting kinda old.--WilliamThweatt 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's amusing, although one has to wonder why it was thought necessary to do it in the first place. Additionally, it's not a matter of two sides, but a contunuum, I think. Шизомби 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the continuum thing. Most Republicans don't agree with everything Bush says or does, and never have. Diddo for Democrats and their candidates. Of course, Republicans tend not to talk about this because they agree with him more than John Kerry (although they have been agreeing with Bush less and less lately). Many foreigners need to understand that we have a two-party system, so in elections, we have to compromise a great deal. I like the Democrat's social policies, but dislike their weak-kneed approach to foreign policy. Of course, there are certain policies that are an exception to my general tendencies. As for vote stealing, technically the Supreme Court fixed the election--not Bush--although the vote was already very close and many people didn't care who won (and thus didn't vote).--Primetime 23:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see, one month ago it was keep, and since all the delete votes, this time around, are coming from self admitted meat puppets...--152.163.100.7 23:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are using hyperbole when you say "all the delete"s (technically, they're not votes) came from meat (?) puppets. Mine certainly did not.  And, by the way, Mr. IP 152.163.100.7 (an anonymous AOL IP), I'm logged in...why aren't you?--WilliamThweatt 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * cough, cough puppet, meat--205.188.116.8 23:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is check my User Contribution History, my anonymous friend, which I have because I am logged in and can be held accountable to my comments, unlike yourself.--WilliamThweatt 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

comment

 * The following is a quote Please do not modify it. 

Bush Crimes Commission
You are invited to vote in Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) -- thanks for voting, and I would encourage you to activate like-minded people to participate as well. Cut and paste this invitation if you're so inclined. Cheers. Morton devonshire 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of spam. Please do not modify it.


 * If you recieved the above notice, then came here and voted delete, you are a meatpuppet, luckily this isn't an issue as meatpuppet votes actually count, at least those that come from RUs count anyway, the 2 or 3 blocked proxies that were also asked to vote, their votes don't count anymore than mine--205.188.116.8 23:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anonymous user above.--WilliamThweatt 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To ADMIN: I have never denied that I received that message but please check the timestamp on my delete here against the timestamp of the message on my talk page.  User:Morton devonsire sent that message to me after I "voted" here.  I don't condone this and did not pass it on.  Please don't discount my "vote".--WilliamThweatt 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

comment # 2
this article was nominated one month ago, the result was keep, more importantly, it was a normal AFD process, this is a circus side show by comparisson--205.188.116.8 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me make it clear that I do not condone SPAMing for "votes". However, the fact that legitimate editors were asked to participate should not negate their "votes".  As long as they are legitimate established editors (not anonymous users or obvious sockpuppets), their opinion regarding this matter is no less valid because they were made aware of the AfD.  In fact, how better to reach a consensus of editors.  A page entitled "Bush Crimes Commission" is only going to attract a certain kind of editor.  How else are other editors supposed to be made aware of the dispute except for those, such as myself, that actively monitor the AfD page.  Nevertheless, it seems to be contrary to current WP guidelines so I will not participate in nor condone it, but ethically, I see nothing wrong with it.  Isn't one of the planks of liberalism 100% voter participation and "getting out the vote" anyway?  I find it ironic that you are advocating supressing "votes" simply because they were made aware of the proceedings by one of the participants.  BTW, I'm still logged in....why aren't you?--WilliamThweatt 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that I've said nothing political at all aside from giving the names of the two templates being used to recruit voters, yet you feel the need to label me anyway, it's disturbing any time someone recruits 50+ people to delete an article. The reason you seem to be uncomfortable talking to me is because I don't have a user page, or a talk page, or a big colorful page full of tags telling you what my opinion on xyz issue is, you're not sure how you're supposed to respond to me without a userbox to tell you how--205.188.116.8 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you see this as a numbers game (100% voter participation) This is really a discussion. The only reason we highlight is to get across the gist of what we say after that, thats why plain Delete votes will not be regarded as someone trying to make up their mind about the article. Being made aware of an invitation to vote, which is a fictional concept, is definitely unethical in my view. Morton has nothing better to do then to fish for votes on this thing, he even rues the fact that some aren't voting the way he thought they would, which shows how much of a joke he thinks the process is. Ans  e  ll  00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that I always put "vote" in quotes. I'm well aware that this is not a numbers game and have even pointed out to others that this technically is not a vote.  I was, however, drawing an analogy to demonstrate a point which was unfortunately, but not suprisingly, lost on the intended anonymous user.--WilliamThweatt 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, is there any "don't like Bush" template (I've seen a few different ones) that is actually an official userbox? I think they're all userfied, and thus only indirectly linked from the image; one would have to click on all the links to see if it is to a pro- or anti-Bush userfied template.  The right wing conspiracy one is a userbox that links all the users.  However, I've no objection to userboxes if they're not abused; if they are abused, I think the abuse should be dealt with, not the userboxes.  To paraphrase a popular slogan of the right, userboxes don't vote stack, people vote stack.
 * I don't think that someone's recommendation should be discounted if their participation is solicited, though I would prefer that the user admit if that happened in their comment, and that the closing admin give some consideration to the fact that it occurred. I think there are both keep and delete recommendations in this discussion that should be disregarded: ones that do not articulate a valid reason for keeping or deletion and those that don't give any reason at all.
 * As for solicitation of participation, Articles_for_deletion notes acceptable ways of notifying people. I don't like the idea of pro-deletion people notifying only people likely to recommend delete or pro-keep people notifying only people likely to recommend keep.  I think it's much more honorable to do notifications likely to reach people who can articulate valid reasons for any action regardless of what position they may take. Шизомби 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well-articulated, Schizombie. That was more or less what I was trying to convey.--WilliamThweatt 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)