User talk:CIreland

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

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

don't

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

thanks

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