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

Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
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)


 * I apologise if you thought that was the case - My only intention is to try and douse the fiery flames, and clear up the mess where possible for this entire fisaco so that a fresh, proper discussion on this article can go ahead. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Looks like a moot point at this time now (see below). - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a fair point, however why don't we wait 24-48 hours and then check the votes against each other. If there is a gap we can discuss it then.Thatcher131 11:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think it was a mistake to discard the previous AfD and start over from scratch; that's not something that should be done so lightly. It's an inconvenience to everyone who took the time to vote the first time around, since it forces them to stop by and vote again, and it doesn't actually help with the issue at hand, since everyone who was informed of the AfD still remains aware of it (the vote, so to speak, remains 'stacked.')  I can understand the urge to get involved and try to solve problems when you see a big argument on AfD, but as I see it, two successive admins have now gotten involved and, through their efforts, managed to turn what should have been a minor disruption into a major one. This sort of thing does happen fairly often; closing admins should be able to handle it without freaking out and cancelling the vote twice in succession.  Remember, there are always people willing to disrupt things for kicks; all this tells them is that disrupting an AfD to the point where it gets discarded is dead easy. --Aquillion 13:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking already
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

From Checkuser
 * Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Likely that he's also . Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're safe at this point assuming that spam from Everyone's Internet == merecat/Anon Texan/et al (and yes, this is he). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Question from an IP editor
If I sign up for a user account, will my vote count here? 216.239.38.136 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)

Hey, I'm not sure what all the fussing is about here, but I don't think my question was answered. Does my "vote", "opinion", "whatever" count if I "register" a user name? Also, if this is not "voting" then, what is it? 216.239.38.136 19:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Ok, mobile phone then, or cellular phone? same thing--64.12.116.8 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

It's a discussion, as opposed to a vote. The best argument (grounded in WP policy) carries the day, not the "side" with the most "votes". As I said, your opinion will be considered, whether or not you register an account. Practically speaking, more people are likely to take ideas seriously from a registered account than from an IP, which is unfortunate, but there you go. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Thatcher, your information is interesting. I think that 64 has an axe to grind or is a sockpuppet. I made one or two edits to the article (after voting) and they were basically immediately reverted by User:Nescio, that's how I go interested here. Are Nescio and Prometheus in league with each other? PPan has been spamming the talk page and nescio has been owning the article. Plus, by y count nescio made 5 or 6 reverts to the subject article today ("Rationales"). I'm suprised none of you have noticed 216.239.38.136
 * Nescio does not own the article, but reverts edits that are introducing the Bush administration's talking points as if this is what critics are saying. Reverting factual inaccuracies is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Please insert your commentsa, but make sure it is clear who says what.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 12:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I's like to see what resource 64 is using to conclude this "gateway" claim. 216.239.38.136 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

So you are saying that we are one and the same? Har - that means you are investigating yourself! 64.233.166.136 20:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * no, it means google only has a half dozen proxies that it uses for cellphone based browsing, and they're probably more overpacked than AOL servers, btw changing your ip to look that close to mine, only proves that you're deliberately selecting a specific ip, which only goes to show that thatcher hit the nail on the head here, this is pointless and confusing, bye bye--64.12.116.8 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it's not confusing to me. Here's how I see it: I am an ordinary editor minding my own business and of all things, I happen to stumble upon you, an IP editor provocatuer. It's pretty clear to me that you are someone who is knee deep in various intrigues areound the wiki, but for what reason, I'm not sure. But what I do know (if we take what you say at face value) is: a) you are highly skilled at tracking other users, b) you are highly knowledgeable about how to mask your true ID by using (as you said) a "proxy". Frankly, I seriously doubt the truth of what you say here. What I think is that you are a sleeper-sock for one of warring sides in this dispute and you are going around stoking controversy and making accusations and complaints so as to derail this AfD. And as luck would have it, you got caught! 216.239.38.136 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Prometheuspan 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) <> (vote stacking and pov pushing from square1) I am relieved to see that vote stacking is apparently against the rules, and suppose that there has been sufficient corroboration of this to prevent me from using the same methods. However, I am still incensed by the fact that these people who are voting are showing total ignorance regarding the facts and the references that are available via ACTUALLY BOTHERING TO READ THE RELEVANT ARTICLE AND ITS DISCUSSION PAGE. In addition, Nescios rfc against merecat, and my arbitration case against merecat seem highly relevant. Why is nobody listening to me when i provide rational and logical argument? Merecat is now proving the hard way that merecat is willing to violate any rules, and play the game any way that it takes to WIN. Working with merecat is a COMBAT experience, and, this VFD is just an extension of that. If people actually bothered to take complaints made by both me and nescio regarding merecat seriously, all of this would be reduced to noise A WEEK AGO. Instead, what we have is an on going combat game of the system, with the highest level of the game intereferance being votes, allready stacked even for just this last and latest vfd. Cyde closed the second VFD for good cause. Anybody who is paying attention, and not acting from bias, would see immediately that that entire vfd was yet another TRICK, used by a pov pusher. A pov pusher who is willing to cheat the consensus process by selecting a mob of people from his own camp to come vote. A pov pusher whos accomplice makes unfounded attacks of the ad hominem sort versus nescio; IN the VFDs OPENING paragraph. (Too which nescio responded, rightly, that was a VILE thing to do.) The VFD was a blatant pov bias from square one. But still, the process continues, pushed on by vote stacking and ignorance. I'm now going to quit this rant, and go collect assorted proofs that voters haven't even bothered to read the relevant materials. I hope that the sanity around here does extend far enough into some sort of actual logic that such proofs impeach a current vote. (My assumption being that they would be allowed to revote if they could bother to proove the second time that they had actually read the article and its talk page.) Excuse me if thats "lawyering." Prometheuspan 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

 * 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)
 * hey anon editor. I agree.
 * So what?
 * Take responsibility, and provide a rebutal.
 * (Or somebody do that.)

You "agree" the article is lopsided? Then why are you defending it? 216.239.38.136 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC) One afternoon, i stopped by wikipedia for a short browse, and discovered one merecat. Slyly using ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments and fallacious reasoning and beating Nescio over the head with outrageous and mean behavior. I took pity on Nescio, and have decided that this constitutes my first reality test of wikipedia. Please note that I HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY TOUCHED THE ARTICLE. Please note that I HAVE ONLY BUZZED AROUND ON TALK PAGES.

Nescios articel IS Factual. Nescios Article did have the rough beginings to start the Defense Echo. Nescio WAS working to improve the article, and was trying to get others involved in making thearticle more NPOV. Nescio Tirelessly put up with extravigant abuse, and consistantly moved to compromise. Nobody stood behind him, and attacks against him and his argument from others other than merecat were frequent. Merecat ran around in circles stirring up as many people as possible. Nescio did his job and defended his turf. He identified a factual topic worthy and noteworthy enough to be tackled by an article, and he wrote the article.

Nescios article never claimed to be finished. Both nescio and myself seem to still believe that the defense echo has yet to be forthcoming. Until that echo arrives, the article IS biased because it lacks its balancing MPOV anchor.

I have looked at every mention of a rule at the rule page. People keep citing me rules and i go look at them and they aren't what people think they are. The rule most often cited is easilly dismissed as a confusion between soap box and movement. A movement is no longer a soap box.

I say the article is Biased as it stands because it is. I say, fix the article, and quit rigging the system and the game with blatant pack psychology mob warfare. I say that all as a sociologist and an aspie. I know mob psychology when i see it.

I also know formal logic. Nobody has given a cogent reason why the article should be deleted. Bias as it exists is not grounds for deletion. All of Nescios sources and references are factually in order. WE even let the name be changed, no real resistance AT ALL. We compromise. The other side takes advantage and breaks the rules. I fight because Nescio faces a wrong mob otherwise alone.

As far as the issue of whether or not we are "in league." I consider myself Nescios defender. He himself has hardly if ever adressed me. I have come to believe he may even resent my take on the best courses of action, or some of my tactics. If it is an issue, the fact is, I act Alone. Prometheuspan 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

- Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning

"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. "

- My comments have everything to do with things. I am watching you use an ad hominem attack, a straw man attack, a false dillemma, all in a single paragraph we will otherwise call a "Vote." Psychology and sociology are the sciences that allow me to understand why and how you are acting, what your motivations are, and, more importantly, what the fallacies of your thinking and your LIES are, such that they can be dealt with reasonably.

More ad hominems against my educational background won't buy you here anything more than some pretty graphics. Maybe you have seen them? Prometheuspan 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

impeachment of strotha as voter
Sure --Strothra 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit]


 * Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

* Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination). * You can leave your message on this talk page here.


 * Knock it off, Prometheuspan. Remember the policy WP:AGF; to suggest that any person only voted the way they did because of a talk page message is to attack their character and integrity.  I don't think Mackensen (a former arbitrator) voted delete on the second AfD because of Merecat's spam attack, do you?  Further, I have found other instances of "vote stacking" (involving far fewer than 30-plus messages) on other Afd debates.  If you want to set up a witchhunt be my guest but you better check all the AfDs and get all of the "vote stackers."  And don't forget to discount all the votes Nescio recruited to AfD2 that are repeated on Afd3, they're no good either, right?  Make your case for the article if you can; wikilawyering and attacking the process is the fallback position for people who are losing their argument. Thatcher131 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although experience tells me ratio has left the building, and I therefore will not comment on this AFD again, your misrepresentation warrants an apology from you. Clearly I responded to several editors trying to stack the vote on the 2nd AFD. Although apparently not good, my actions are not equal to those that started the rigging of this AFD. And to assert I even did that on this 3rd AFD, while it was Merecat evading his block using sockpuppets, is ludicrous. It would be great if you retract that incorrect allegation.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 00:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You recruited voters to your side for Afd2. I have no problem with advocacy (in moderation), and I firmly disagree with the admins who think that blocking on an unwritten policy without warning first was the right way to do business.  Prometheuspan took it upon himself to declare that Strothra's vote should be impeached because Merecat solicited him.  Surely if Strothra's vote is invalid then so are the votes of the people you solicited, and even though you solicited them for Afd2, their votes should not count in Afd3 either, unless we grant that every voter was completely unaware of the closing controversy and came upon Afd3 as pure as a newborn lamb.  I don't think you did anything wrong.   I was simply pointing out to Prometheuspan that he was casting a very broad net. Thatcher131 01:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet another misrepresentation.
 * Please go here: Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This does not sound as a neutral invitation! Clearly, he did something I did not, suggest how to "vote."
 * And you fail to acknowledge that I merely responded to Merecat and Morton trying to manipulate the AFD. Another evident difference in our action.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 11:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Please note that some of the citations you have made are not "legal efforts", those are petitions. Please read the articles you cite. States have no power to impeach. Citizens of individual states have the ability to push their legislators in Congress to begin impeachment hearings but have no authority to actually impeach. Impeachment is a matter undertaken at only the very highest federal levels of government in the legislative branch as a check on the power of the executive. You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class. You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works - it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some familiarity with it. --Strothra 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -- Strothas not reading the information provided. There is a legal loophole that can be used for a state to force the issue for discussion. This was posted in vfd discussion page 2 --

Please review Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks at WP:NPA.

Yeah. Mirror mirror. Why don't you have a look at it yourself?

Also, please know that I am very intimately familiar with constitutional law. There are no "loopholes" in the U.S. Federal Constitution only interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation and has never interpreted the statute for impeachment to give any rights to states in that process because the states are already represented through their state congressmen in the legislative branch which handles the investigatory process. --Strothra 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --- Interpretation is apparently strong enough to warrant the articles claims. Prometheuspan 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * someone might also want to checkuser prometheus here--64.12.116.8 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that seems like a grand idea. Prometheuspan 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC) To continue with the impeachment of Strotha; Strothas actual vote; ---   * 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)

Note that this article is not titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush". So whether or not there is or is not "serious discussion on The Hill about beginning these processes" is completely irrelevant to this article, which is about reasons for impeachment, not the movement for impeachment. Those reasons certainly do exist and are notable, quite apart from whether the movement for impeachment exists or who may or may not be participating in it. -- noosphere 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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) -- of a few solitary people. Thousands of USA citizens at the very least and millions of people worldwide think that Bush sould be impeached. That makes this a MOVEMENT that is NOTEWORTHY.
 * Pov soapbox. Sorry, no this would be a soap box if it was the creation

is a republican talking point, and a legal opinion, not a fact.
 * Impeachment can only begin on the hill. No, There are checks and balances for impeachment to begin a vaariety of ways. What you have here

is an ad hominem invalidation of those groups, and further, even some Republicans are now espousing Impeachment, this is not limited to partisan politics.
 * "Not notable". Does not depend on where or what direction. Only depends on sheer number of people, number of references, and size of the movement. Your argument is a logical fallacy, there is no rational grounds to exclude "fringe right groups." Further, "Fringe right groups"

summoned here to vote based on the likely reaction to this topic only makes it more clear that this is a vote stacked super aggenda BIAS that is now being allowed to "vote". Prometheuspan 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strotha has an AGENDA. That AGENDA is A BIAS. That BIAS is the only thing relevant to how Strotha Voted, and the fact that Strotha was


 * I do not have an agenda. I have opinions which result from the analysis of factual evidence and my background knowledge of constitutional law. Beyond that I will not comment on this absurd effort of yours.  --Strothra 20:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do have an agenda. WE ALL have Agendas. The only real cogent question is, WHAT is our agenda? Doublethink is going to get you triple bonus doubleplusungoodpoints.

Also, I voted in the origional AfD long before I was asked to look at it. --Strothra 20:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --- Irrelevant. How many other people did that user page? As its an anon acount paging, how many other accounts are being used to do the same thing? And WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I WAS WRITING THE ARTICLE??? Thats funny, i don't remember any of you people being involved until pov pushing motivated rfcs started being tossed out by ad hominem starting deletionists. - That's not what we are voting on and it isn't what people are discussing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we aren't here to take a position on political matters. The vote is about whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia or not. --- I am aware of what wikiepdia isandis not, andthis is a veiled ad hominem against my understanding, just like strotha starting ad hominems against me on my talk page, and then hitting ME with the "No personal attacks" bizness. YOUR argument is irrelevant because the point is that the topic of the article is factually noteworthy; a fact your argument evades.

Also, please stop posting after a long list of good arguments and saying that no-one has made a good argument against the article. Say that you disagree or that you think the arguments are wrong, but it will save us all a lot of trouble if we start listening to what each other is saying.

Thats great advice. Please go back and read my arbitration request. Here, let me help.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Merecat []

And while you are at it, please look at the discussion page of the article, and everything else relevant.

Convince me that anybodies actually listening. I don't see that, I see a mob of republicans raised by an illegal consenus tactic voting against an article most of them haven't even bothered to read. As I said. Nobody has provided a cogent argument as to why the Article should be deleted. Any familiarity with the article at all renders half of these deletion excuses obviously and patently false. Thats the funny thing about a mob. It just follows who points. It doesn't have a head on for a GOOD reason. But it has a full steam of BIAS. Prometheuspan 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are in serious violation of many Wiki guidelines. You are assuming extreme bad faith and attacking the personal integrity of legitimate editors while refusing to engage in calm, polite discourse.  All users are allowed to contribute and discuss the issue at hand.  You seem to be having a one-sided discussion.  Please cease this behavior immediately or you risk having arbitration opened up against you. Also, you were given NPA warning from another user as well, not just myself.  Your behavior is offensive to several other editors calmly engaging in the discussion. --Strothra 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

-- "Serious violation" no, I am not violating any rules. I am playing pretty close to the net. "assuming bad faith" no, I am assuming good faith, and people like yourself are showing well why that is a fallacious assumption. "Arbitration against me." I welcome that, at least admins would actually be forced to listen to me instead of ignore me, and, it would proove one way or antoher whether or not I am facing a sane consensus process, or a pack psychology driven mad house. "Offensive to others" Good, I should be offensive to people who are voting with lies because they either haven't read the article, or are just habitual liars about things which are political. Lying without even realizing it isn't just pathetic, its not rational. And I am right to piont out that people who say that the article is a soap box, or that it comes from "leftists" are only using bogus and fallacious logic which in this case is not only merely propaganda and inertia, but factually untrue in this case with this article.

Prometheuspan 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 3
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)

Prometheuspan 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC) The moral of the story is, we who want the article kept are willing to compromise. Those who don't want the article kept are making a mockery of the process.

Assorted votes.
Strothra 05:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -- Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) All irrelevant. Never addressed why the article is noteworthy. A set of ad hominems and a straw man. A false association. A false dillema. No logic. -
 * 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. --
 * 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)

--- WE THE PEOPLE can impact the body, and more importantly, the fact that "left fringe groups" do support George Bushes impeachment doesn't mean that others don't also; A petty invalidation by means of a false correlation. Further, psychological warfare. WE CAN IMPEACH. And that is WHAT WE ARE GOING to do. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

-- The article needs its own space or it will be a useless, emasculated article. Are you are vying for here is an article with no impact. The article has better than a dozen reason to impeach, each one is complicated. Sorry thats not a short article, its a long one. And its going to get longer. So it needs its own space. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete given that the main article this was split from, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, is far too long and needs to be cut down so that article can include the rationales, and I don't think that voting for a merge would achieve that. Nevertheless, as a second choice I would support a merge if the parent article were cut down significantly so that Wikipedia doesn't just wind up with one double-length article. Note that the title of this article has been changed to Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Thanks for providing the first potentially cogent Vote to Delete. If it is factually true that each of these rationales has individually its own article, and, if those articles can be reasonably linked to the "movement to impeach article" and if THAT was the proposed plan, I wouldn't be able to find serious fault with it. I wouldn't like it, but i wouldn't be able to raise caine about it in good consience either. The question becomes whether or not those other articles actually make the case that these are ratonales to impeach, and whether these articles actually cover well ALL of the assorted Rationales. The further issue is how the assorted Rationales form a network of proofs that the Admin is by far more sinister and evil than any admin we have ever had. How the proofs interelate and modify each other as a whole is an important issue here. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) --- --- No, this is not a pov soap box, that is a lie. This is a fact based article with good references on a noteworthy topic. There is no violation of WP:NPOV. Please let me know if vote stacking is legal, Ill be happy to go around wikipedia to get out my vote. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) -
 * Merge and Delete The list of rationales for impeachment is given at Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Each section of the article is covered in greater detail in several other articles (NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Bush-Blair memos, and so forth). The only function served by the current article is to create summaries of those articles (offering an opportunity to introduce POV) and install a level of indirection between Movement to impeach George W. Bush and the primary description of the events which have motivated the movement. Verifiable information which is not included in those other articles linked under the section headers should be merged to the appopriate articles, and the current article deleted; the page on the movement can point to those articles directly. Choess 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible Delete, redirect, and protect against recreation This article is just a soap-box for people who don't like Bush. It is an inherent violation of WP:NPOV.  Also, I don't know exactly what Mailer Diablo means by "vote stacking", but no one has been able to provide any policy link that says people can't recruit additional participants to an AfD.  Sock-puppetry is prohibited.  Get out the vote campaigns are not prohibited. Johntex\talk


 * 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)

The article needs a defense echo. It allready IS npov aside from that. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) ---

then improperly closed the original AfD within 1 day of its being created. Johntex -- Except that the vote was closed for good reasons, not the least of which sould have been that the vote was opened with an ad hominem attack. And, more importantly, the factual process violations of merecat and bluegoose; who opened a vfd for political purposes after failing to shoot it down themselves personally. To call what occured a "vote" is to exagerate unfairly. What actually happened, and to some extent is still happening, is a pack psychology driven mob event, where people who haven't read the article and who have an agenda to simply deny the facts of the impeachment rationales are using vote stacking. Between those two problems, the fact was obvious that the vfd should be closed. Potentially, to be re-opened. But with RULES. People who make bad faith VFDs deserve to have them shut down. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

--- I agree with everything except your vote to delete. This article is ABOUT a MOVEMENT of NOTE in the USA and around the whole world. I think you may have missed that. The article is a factual article, written in neutral language, with all of its resources and references in order. What the article needs- AND THE ONLY THING it needs to conform to wp:NPOV is a defense echo. -
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog and not a soapbox. We should not have articles providing advocacy for or against political actions. We should have NPOV articles on political organisations, figures and movements of note in various countries not the arguments that they use. Capitalistroadster 06:13, 4 May 2006

- Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) No, the article is a factual report about a noteworthy topic. Some of the references are suitably from reasonably neutral resources. The only reason why we don'thave better resources is that the dominant media is republican owned and controlled. Whether or not the house has drafted articles to impeach or not is in this case irrelevant. WE THE PEOPLE in the numbers of THOUSANDS and probably MILLIONS have indeed begun the process to impeach. And we are pretty determined about it. And the rationales to impeach are so airtight that you folks would rather have a political firestorm of a vfd than try to face making a simple defense. This isn't crytal balling, the movement is a fact and the rationales the movement use are a fact.
 * Delete Kotepho says above that "Cited sopaboxing by others" is allowed.  I disagree.  While I assume we have articles on white supremacy, anti-semitism, nazism, and so on, bringing together arguments from these diverse sources into an article Reasons why Jews secretly control the world would be unacceptable on so many grounds I can't list them all.  This article is basically the same, starting with a book about impeachment and then piling on with everything that has happened in the last 6 years that is supposedly GWB's fault.  The desires of some to see George Bush impeached are not a topic for an encylopedia entry unless they have some foundation in reality (and by this I mean the reality of the impeachment process, not the reality of having been stated in a quotable source).  No one in the House of Representatives has even proposed a draft of Articles of Impeachment.  Inclusion of particular topics as "rationales" is based on highly POV sources, and constitutes original research, crystal balling and soapboxing by the wikipedia editors involved. Further comments

--- Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Don't blame me, i thought the name change was silly. I let them do it to compromise. Fundamentally, this is a factual article written in neutral language which conforms to all of the rules, with the only possible exception being that it lacks a MPOV defense echo. Your attacks against the article are only attacks, and they are not grounded in anything more solid than your biases.
 * Delete per WP:NOT. The title says it all.  Fundamentally, this is essay material, not an encyclopedia entry.  Essays may be well written, carefully argued or achieve notability, for instance, Bertrand Russell's well-known Why I Am Not a Christian;  however, essay material is not and can not ever be an encyclopedia entry. This is not fixable by changing the "real" title from "Why George Bush should be impeached" to "Rationales for impeachment" to "Rationales provided by advocates for impeachment" or any further levels of obfuscating indirection.

Nor is it fixable by any amount of editing to couch everything in third-person phrasing. Nor is it fixable by providing more references

Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, it is fixable, and, more importantly, it really isn't even broken. It is an article written in WP format and by WP rules, it fits. If Millions of people start a movement to not elect Hillary, then that may become an equally noteworthy movmement. Until then, you logic is based on fallacious set theory. There is no solid link between your example and this article. --- Some editors are letting partisanship get the better of them and trying to tortuously construe some "Rationale for a 'Rationales for impeachment' article". The murky circumstances of the abrupt shutdown of the previous AfD and blocking of several editors were also very unhelpful. -- Curps 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --- Some editors are letting partisanship get the better of them. However, those users are the ones who are voting to delete a perfectly good article generated in good faith on a noteworthy topic. Partisanship is certainly an issue here, but the partisan mob of republcians created by votestacking probably isn't what you had in mind. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Thats three ad hominems. The article is in fact a factual article written in neutral language about a factual movement. It isn ot pov. What is pov are the votes around here. "Ignorant" is an ad hominem. And it isn't true. All of these rationales are well thought out and well researched by hundreds of persons. "Apalling" is an ad hominem. "Believe" is a third ad hominem, by way of attacking as if to invalidate the mental grounds of anybody who agrees with the rationales. In FACT all of these rationales are high crimes and misdemeanors. So who is ignorant? Projections. You project your ignorance against us. You project your beleif against us. And you project appalling against us. But all of those things are not true of us, and are factually true of you. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) - without citing any legal justifications for the assertions. --- Are you an ignorant liar or an intentional liar? Several different legal resources have been cited, and, I will be happy to cite more legal references should that become important. Make up your mind whether this is to be more or less actual references. Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete. The inherent POV of this article is revealed both in its content and in the remarks of its advocates. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people fishing for excuses to buttress their political point of view. Calling any article Rationales for ... brands it as not encyclopedic material. The various "rationales" are an appalling and often ignorant compendium of grievances against Bush which the articles' authors obvious believe (or wish) are impeachable offenses

I*Strong delete title implies obvious POV-essay soapboxing. Also the spamming has started?l?gu??? | Have your say!!! - review me 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WE changed the articles name for you folks and it isn't enough. So what do we have to do? Dance and sing? Prometheuspan 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed
I reverted the late vote by User:Justforasecond - the AfD is closed. --mtz206 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

oh yeah then why is it still there? Looks like yet another attempt to save the article by Administrators

Actually, it's so that the articles can be merged. Nice conspiracy theory though. -- Cyde Weys 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No consensus

 * Can someone please point me to the rationalisation for the "delete and merge" determination for the third AfD? As I counted it, there were well over 40 "keeps", and around 100 "deletes". I don't see any indication of consensus (they're not even close to a supermajority) in those figures. &#0151; JEREMY 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If by "consensus" what is meant "no significant disagreement", then there is no consensus of any kind in this AfD.  -- noosph e re 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in your definition of "consensus". That is not the required threshold for deletion discussions.  Please read (or reread) the Guide to deletion which discusses what we really mean by "rough consensus".  On a technical note, JEREMY is also incorrect in his definition of supermajority.  A supermajority is any pre-defined threshold greater than 50%.  It can in theory be defined as low as 51% and is not uncommonly set at 55%, 60% or 66%.  66% is the threshold most commonly used in the US Senate, for example.  100 of 140 would be 71.4%  Rossami (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, all WP:GD does is point to the "Rough consensus" section of WP:DGFA, which says administrators must use their best judgement regarding when rough consensus has been reached, but doesn't actually say what rough consensus means.


 * As far as supermajority, according to WP:CON, "this issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds" -- noosph e re 06:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have begun a deletion review. &#0151; JEREMY 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MOVE ON! Morton devonshire 23:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)