User talk:Scott MacDonald

Your pathetic attitude and clear cut bullying

This is regarding Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri's Article. I had put a tag to contest the proposed deletion by some vandals. You should have allowed it be seen and judged by some unbiased and neutral Administrators and then decide upon it. But, in the quickest haste, you removed the tag. It seems you have already prejudiced your mind and are using your leverage with Wikipedia wrongly, in a dictatorial manner.

Look into your conscience, you will know the truth.

I have provided outside references from many Islamic Institutions with physical addresses in the world about the Shaikh. They have appreciated his works on their official websites. Even one of such evidence is sufficient for Wikipedia while I have provided around 17.

In addition, I provided written evidence of Shaikh Deedat who is accepted by Wahhabis, Deobandis and Sunnis as an Islamic Scholar. He has appreciated Shaikh's work.

I provided appreciation of other sects, like Bhaiees (who are not related with Shaikh's work and preaching) Organization which they have put Shaikh's appreciation on their official website. They have physical address and phone numbers.

I provided evidences for American Management Association, British Institute of Management, Association of Business Executives of UK, where the Shaikh was member for many years. All these Institutions are real, physically existing and extremely popular in the world.

In spite of all these evidence, you think you can delete the Article. Alas, I do not understand what kind of logic you follow. I will indeed appeal against your arbitrary actions and I am sure I will get justice at Wikipedia. I know there are judicious people in Wikipedia who will sure disagree with what you are upto.

Guide99 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)--Guide99 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced positive material from a BLP page (Jamie Sorrentini)

It is quite disturbing to see you investing so much time and effort across multiple pages to remove sourced positive material from a BLP page. It seems to be a departure from your normal and admirable modus operandi on BLP pages, which is usually to look out for and remove negative material. Perhaps you could explain how you came by this page in particular and why the sudden change in behavior on BLPs to try to make them more negative by removing positive sourced material? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what an assumption of bad faith. The article is a puff-piece, I de-puffed it. You seem to have some interest and ownership problems here. Let's discuss content on the talk page. I didn't go to multiple pages, when I found us deadlocked on the talk page, rather than edit-war I sought uninvolved input. I posted to one other place, the BLPNB, and told you exactly what I was doing. So, let's getsome folk, work on the talk page and reach a neutral consensus. (If anyone is watching here, please come and join us at Jamie Sorrentini). --Scott Mac 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please answer my above question? -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I reject the premise of the question. I have no desire to make any article negative, but material being sourced doesn't mean it is relevant.--Scott Mac 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How did you come by this particular page? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter? I review hundreds of BLPs every month. The only question is whether my edits improve the article. That needs answered through consensus-building discussion. Why do you feel the need to resist my edits by questioning me. Let's stick to content questions.--Scott Mac 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you refuse to answer the question? -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You answer mine first?--Scott Mac 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your answer as to how you came by the article could likely indicate it colored your bias previously before having first encountered the article itself. That is a possible problem. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Edits stand for themselves. If my edits are biased, then people will see that. If yours are biased, people will see that. Why did you puff the article? What is your interest in the subject? I could ask all of that, but it is irrelevant. Edits speak for themselves - I think yours are not neutral. You think mine are not neutral. Thus we seek the input of others to reach consensus. However, you seem to object to that process, that is troubling.--Scott Mac 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Before this becomes an abbott and costello routine, don't we all know where this article was mentioned?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not. I would like to know. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Misusing BLP

There's no BLP issue at Charlotte Green. There's your editorial preference, but that doesn't make BLP magically apply. The content isn't actually negative, and it's not WP:UNDUE as the majority of what has been written about her in reliable sources covers her 'corpsing' incidents. She's written about it herself, so you're not 'protecting' her.[1] The Telegraph noted her as one of "50 reasons to love Britain" and mentioned her giggling[2] and the 2008 incident was mentioned in their critic's 2008 radio review of the year.[3] I can see that we can cut it down slightly, but removing all the details and sources is really over the top. I was not cherry-picking sources when I revamped her bio. Fences&Windows 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

we can discuss this on the talk page, but we err on the side of removing BLP material until we've got consensus. And yes, there is an issue here.--Scott Mac 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see this AfD of an article you worked on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephraim Shapiro (2nd nomination) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dating websites

Hi Scott, I noticed your post at WP:RSN#www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs. Rather than clutter up that page, I thought I'd mention here that webpages can sometimes be dated by looking at 'Tools->Page Info' in Firefox, for example. On the webpage under consideration, it doesn't work, but there is "This page was last updated on March 6, 2008" at the bottom of the page! --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology for toe stepping

Hey, I apologize for editing the block reason without consulting you. I would have blocked him for making a legal threat regardless of your block reason, and I would not want him unblocked after making legal threats if he just verified his identity. If anything, I was notifying a possible unblocking administrator that there were other issues. I was not intending to make the block reason incomprehensible or to overstep your authority.

If you wish for some other action to be done (including undoing my block reason change), I am totally fine with it (it really is not a big deal to me if somebody reverts one of my admin actions if I have made a mistake or an improvement can be made). Also, if you have a problem with an administrative action of mine in the future, can you please take it to my talk page rather than leaving it at the bottom of a thread? It makes things more personal and direct. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your wisdom is pathetic!

Don't you ever attack me again when I am forced to defend myself! "there's nothing more to be said. Arbcom is arbcom, Giano is Giano...the usual.--Scott Mac 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)"  Giacomo  20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that's an attack, then you truly need some perspective.--Scott Mac 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You trying to hide the arbcpom's shortcomings is unacceptable, what's it got to do with you anyway. Wherever I am, there you are like a stumbling up behind like a lame undertaker carrying a cheap coffin to the front.  Giacomo  20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty impossible to edit this wiki without tripping over you. That page is on my watchlist and hundreds of others, and you seem to be filling it with your paranoid nonsense. You poked the arbcom wiki, and suspected JamesF and DavidGerrard still had access. They didn't. Arbcom found some unrelated weaknesses and fixed them. Now you are attacking and abusing people and calling them "pathetic" while shouting about people abusing you. You want the the thread open? Fine. But it's just making you look like an absurd parody of yourself, grasping at straws to feed your ego and the drama you thrive on. You have so much talent, it's always been my great regret you can't channel it into useful things. Anyway, knock yourself out - but know your credibility is decreasing here.--Scott Mac 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sherman article

Scott: Thank you for the action on protection request. Hartfelt (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect use of G10

You deleted adequate sources from Jerry Mezzatesta, like these: [4][5], apparently made no effort to fix dead links (If you had you would have found this whole sereis on the subject[6]), then speedy deleted the article as unsourced. Since appears to have been a mistake, I'm going to undelete it. Please be more careful in the future.   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You've made a mistake here. Material deleted under BLP is not to be summarily restored. Arbcom has made that very clear, and you are well aware of that. Of course, it is possible I have made a mistake, and you are quite at liberty to bring it to my attention. I'm tied up right now, but I'll review that very carefully later - and I'm not to fixed to back up if you are correct. Sorry, I can't review it right now, but I'm only on-line for a few minutes, and I think your remarks certainly deserve my careful review. I'll respond as soon as I'm able, and if you don't like my response at that point you are welcome to go to DRV (as I say, that may not be necessary). However, material deleted under BLP remains out of encyclopedia until either the deleting admin agrees, or a consensus is formed that it is safe to restore it. For that simple reason, I've restored the deletion. You may well be right, but one admin's opinion is never enough to restore material another admin has seen fit to delete. Admins have been desysopped for doing precisely that. Since I'm not aware of you making this mistake in the past, I'll let it go this time.

I will respond fairly to your points on the article as soon as I can - and as I say, I'll restore it immediately at that point if I agree with you. There will be no harm in this remaining deleted for a bit until I can review, and any needful discussion can take place. If it turns out I've made a mistake, you have my apology in advance. Thanks.

In future, if you find errors in my admin actions, feel free to raise them with me. I undertake to review carefully and change as necessary. If we can't agree, then we peacefully go to DRV to get the input of others.--Scott Mac 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What speedy deletion criteria were you using? You also forgot to specify, as required by Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators.   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Mezzatesta was not an attack page, it was fairly well sourced and the google cache version includes material about a judge clearing him of some accuastions. Would be happy to fix in my userspace and return if I had guidance about what was particularly problematic; would probably be better to include some mention of any positive accomplishments before his downfall. But googling him without having a wiki article is going to be more harmful to him if my opinion, because the nasty news is as the top.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. First Will, you've been slightly disingenuous here. I did not "delete adequate sources". I removed material that contained a number of poorly sourced assertions, dead links, and pretentiously libellous claims. Te section I removed did also contain some sources (like the ones you indicate) but they did not adequately support the material. No doubt, those sources could be used to rebuild the section, but simply restoring it because "these two sources are good" is missing the entire point. Can I politely suggest that you determination to find fault with me has made you somewhat reckless here? Looking at what you restored:

1. You restored material relying on "The Charleston Gazette. The Associated Press (Charleston, W.V.): p. 1.A. March 31, 2007." I removed this because the link is dead. I assume you have access to an off-line version of this, and verified it is correct? If you do, fine. Otherwise, on what basis did you restore it?
2. You restored "a pro-life candidate allegedly with no political experience named Ruth Rowan" - that has no reference, and thus violated BLP. Very careless.
3. Charleston Daily Mail. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: p. 7.A. June 7, 2006. Again, I ask have you access to this off-line and have you checked it? Ot are you just assuming because it's theoretically available it must be an adequate source?
4. Staff, wire reports (July 30, 2009). "SETTLEMENT:; Hampshire to pay Mezzatesta $192,000 settlement". The Charleston Gazette: p. A.1. Ditto.

The entire biography is built round a narration of charges that were entirely, and a dismissal for which the subject was compensated. It is, in short, an entirely negative BLP. Such an article, if it is to exist, needs impeccable sourcing - for three years, this one had been tagged as a mess and of questionable neutrality. Simply restoring it without discussion towards remedying those faults is entirely unacceptable.

It is quite possible for us to work out a way of creating an acceptable article here, but your wheel-waring is not that way. Had you created a proper article from sourced you have access to, I would have no objection. Had you asked to userfy this to allow fixing it up, I would have agreed. Simply restoring it breeches both policy and etiquette.

You ask what policy I deleted this under. Well, I think that's quite clear. My deletion summary says it all "negative WP:BLP with poor sources and deadlinks", as per arbcom's ruling Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.[7]

Where to now? Well, I've no particular objection to a proper article on this individual. I'm content to move it into someone's userspace so they can fix it up properly and verify all the sources used.--Scott Mac 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please restore the article that you deleted out of process. If you're going to lecture other admins on following rules you need to do so as well.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've obviously not read what I've written. I've broken no "rule". If you are content to carefully work this through from sources you actually have access to, I am willing to put this in your userspace.--Scott Mac 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the article remained a negative bio, that is a different issue entirely, and I have no opinion on that aspect. But whether you like it or not, a fully fleshed cite to a newspaper article that is not online remains "fully compliant with every aspect of the policy". If you don't like that fact, go build a consensus to change WP:V. As an administrator, your job is to enforce policies as they are, not as you personally wish they were. Resolute 19:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't argue that. I merely asked if Will had actually verified the negative BLP material he so easily restored. And I note he didn't answer that. If he can say he's seen the off-line source, I'll be fine with that.--Scott Mac 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever added that source did, and should be treated with equal respect as Will. The only caveat I would make is on the basis of whether the text that those cites supported had been changed in the intervening time. Lacking that, I would consider removing such cites a failure to WP:AGF, not to mention constituting a blatant disregard for WP:V. Resolute 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to get the article right. Assuming good faith, and keeping sweet with wiki-ethics, play second fiddle. Will restored questionablenegaive material that had been deleted under BLP. I simply asked how he could be confident that the sources supported the negative content. I think that's a pretty important question.--Scott Mac 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that we didn't already get the article "right"? It seems to me that you are just moving the goalposts on this one. The material you object to was cited with reliable sources. Again, if you don't like how WP:V is applied, seek consensus to change. Otherwise, accept that the statements referenced by those newspaper cites are correct and look toward other areas. Resolute 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The BLP was marked as non-neutral for three years. There were a number of dead links, a number of unreferenced claims, and some material that didn't see to reflect the source. It was all questionable. I investigated, but since I could not verify off-line sources, it was safer to remove all questionable material. There is no other responsible way of proceeding here - other than crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best.--Scott Mac 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a drive-by NPOV tag with no discussion. The normal thing would just be to remove those as stale. Again, which speedy deletion criteria did you use and why didn't you follow the deletion procedure? And yes, I've verified all the sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained the process and policy I've followed - I've nothing more to add. Thanks for confirming you've verified the sources, without access to them it was not possible for me to check with the thoroughness that you obviously now have. I will restore the article to my own userspace and we can sort out the remaining BLP issues before returningit to article space.--Scott Mac 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now restored. It would have been much less hassle, had you asked me what my concerns were, reassured me that you'd been able to check the sources and we'd worked out the remaining issues. I'm not that that unapproachable.--Scott Mac 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There'd be less hassle if you specified the criteria and made sure the article actually meets that criteria. If there's an "ignore all rules" situation then you should probably write an explanation on AN for why the rules needed to be ignored. Admins do have significant discretion, but that shouldn't be abused. Anyway, glad it's resolved now for this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I did specify the criteria - see the arbcom permission I referred to above. My deletion summary indicated I believed it to be a poorly sourced negative BLP. I see nothing problematic with what I did, and a major problem with how you responded. I know you have an objection to the arbcom ruling, but I suggest you take that up with the committee and not with me.--Scott Mac 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an unresolved issue with application of WP:V here. Scott, you say you couldn't verify the off-line sources -- why not? Is it simply a matter of not having had ready access to them in a newspaper archive? With the citation in hand, a trip to a newspaper archive would surely enable you to verify them. Lack of easy access to the source does not mean there is a failure of WP:V -- that's simply not what V requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom does not set policy. The Speedy Deletion criteria are set forth clearly, and the deletion procedure requires listing the criterion being used. If the ArbCom's non-policy is being invoked, then it should also be referenced in the edit summary. That non-policy requires that the entire revision history be checked and only if every single revision is a violation of BLP may it be deleted. Further, deletion should be the last resort, not the first. Just because a link has gone dead does not mean that an article is unsourced. If there are negative assertions that appear to be poorly sourced then the proper thing to do is to delete those assertions, even stubbing the article if necessary, but not to delete the entire article. Please re-read the deletion policy pages before deleting another article.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said. I follow arbcom's ruling here. If you don't agree with it, take it up with them.--Scott Mac 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm asking you to follow Wikipedia policy. If you want the Arbcom's limited decision to be part of policy then it's up to you to propose that as a change to the existing deletion policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Will beback (talk • contribs)

I believe I am following policy as interpreted by arbcom. You obviously don't agree with their interpretation - that's not my problem. Look, this is going nowhere, I suggest you go to arbitration because I am not going to change my opinions here.--Scott Mac 23:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Am to interpret your deletion of my last comment[8] to mean that you believe a four-year old ArbCom case overrides the current WP:BLP policy, and that you do not believe you need to follow the current policy, and that you refuse to discuss this further?   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User said you are refusing to listen and being pointy about it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Where'd User say that?   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe arbcom interpret the point and policy of this project more wisely and authoritatively than you do Will. But you are now flogging a dead horse, I have answered your questions - you don't agree with arbcom. You can talk it up with them. Please don't keep repeating yourself here. I have no interest in continuing a conversation here were all you are doing is saying the same thing over and over. Take it to arbcom or drop it.--Scott Mac 01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So far, Scott, the arbitrators appear to be unanimous in supporting your interpretation of policy. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome news, but somewhat unsurprising.--Scott Mac 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It'll be a sad day if the ArbCom decides that it writes policy rather than the community. I guess it's inevitable that it would seek that power.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You really don't get it do you? We've got a festering sump of BLPs, unmaintained, of questionable importance, and capable of damaging innocent people, who never asked for any involvement in Wikipedia. We need to encourage MORE vigilance and develop far stricter methods of damage limitation. If that occasionally means a bid of a trivial article or some low-interest material is inadvertently removed, then that is a price well worth paying. You, however, are utterly indifferent to the problem, and rather are myopically and selfishly concerning yourself with an inhouse squabble about how rules are written and processes followed. I have as much contempt for such such priorities as you have long had for BLP issues. I've had your card marked for a number of years.--Scott Mac 08:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly ArbCom is dodging the issue: it still hasn't really answered to the point, it just had vaguely reminded the current mantra about BLP. When directly asked, Coren admitted, quite expectedly, that offline sources are as good as online sources: also, he said just claiming something is done to enforce BLP doesn't give a free pass. The problem is that here Scott is not even enforcing BLP anymore, he's enforcing some policy that exists only in his mind, and he is completely incapable of even considering being in the wrong because of his zeal. --Cyclopia^talk 09:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, with all due respect. Just because I disagree with you on some issue doesn't mean that I shit upon BLPs. I've added more sources to BLPs than you have, I'd bet.

• I've had your card marked for a number of years.

What does that mean? Why so combative?

If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do.

The issue here is simply this: can the community set certain parameters around summary BLP deletions. The WP:BLP policy, written by the community, does so. I think it's a good policy. Do you?   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That issue simply doesn't interest me.--Scott Mac 12:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's exactly the problem.

I propose shelving this for a month or so. Agreeable? It isn't urgent and we all have better things to do.   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Shelving what? Arbcom seem to agree with my interpretation of policy. Whether you wish to continue the discussion with them is entirely up to you. As far as I'm concerned this is over.--Scott Mac 12:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Photo - William & Kate

Hi Scott,

You might like to make a reference to http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/newsandgallery/news/the_official_engagement_photographs_of_prince_william_and_ca_1709556166.html.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen, State and Kirk

Hi Doc! Long time no see. Just spotted your edit, and wondered if you'd seen this?

• http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orgqueen.htm

The only references to Her Maj being a "member" of the CofS appears to be wiki or wiki-mirrors. Isn't it amazing how long dubious statements go unchecked around here! Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "a member of the Church of Scotland" in the abstract. One can only be a communicant member (or adherent) of an individual congregation. The Queen attends Crathie Kirk when at Barmoral, but I've never seen it alledged she's a member. I've always seen this as a myth. I think it stems from Andrew Melville's comment to James VI "not a king, nor a head, nor a lord, but a member". --Scott Mac 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Helpful or harmful?

Here's something to think about then - for next years' wikicup I suggested some multipliers to award points to see if this would change what folks would write about (WRT producing audited content (DYK,GA, FA - note these are largely covered with inline references these days). The one you might be intrigued to comment on is BLPs. My thinking was if this competition prompted more folks to buff (i.e. reference) BLP articles this would be a good thing, but the consensus feels the other way...anyway read for yourself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Biased little bully"?

Don't suppose you'd like to refactor that, would you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems a fairly objective description, actually. I'm not sure how else I'd put it.--Scott Mac 21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, some way that didn't beg for a civility block would be nice. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming over to say the same thing. Regardless of whether or not you think it's correct, it's a personal attack. Shell ^babelfish 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• - try, opinionated authority figure Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've refactored. I should comment to the actions not on the person, I know. It is just difficult when the actions were biased and bullying.--Scott Mac 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am of average height, 5'9". Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for calling you little. withdrawn--Scott Mac 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are forgiven. No hard feelings. Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo

Please undelete Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo. The article has adequate sources in the references and the "external links" sections. There are also plentiful news reports.[9] Unfortunately, it appears you made no effort to fix the article, and did not start a discussion afterwards, as required by WP:BLP. Please be more careful in the future.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So what happened to your "shelving it"? The article had two references. One a deadlink to paddydoyle.com, the other to a BBC transcript that carried the disclaimer "THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY". So, no reliable sources whatsoever. The "external links" (which do not count as sources) were three. One was a deadlink. One makes no mention of Spricigo. One is of uncertain reliability. The deletion was entirely proper. (OK, not by your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy, but it looks like arbcom is rejecting that).

I remain, as always, willing to help anyone who wishes to do a fully policy compliant re-write. I am happy to e-mail a copy of the source text to facilitate a rewrite.

It looks to me, however, as if you are going through my deletion logs to make a point and intimidate me from removing clear violations. If you have a problem with me, take it to arbitration - because you will not slow me down otherwise. But beware the boomerang.--Scott Mac 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Deadlinks are not a reason to delete citations, much less entire articles. I checked two of the deadlinks and found them in the Internet Archive.[10][11] Sources are often placed in the External links sections of articles. Misplaced references is not a reason to delete an article. The accuracy of a transcript may refer to minor errors, but clearly the piece deals extensively with the subject.[12] This article appears to count as a reliable source as well.[13] Further, I've pointed you to additional available sources in Google news.[14] the subject appears to be notable and there are sufficient reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The article I deleted violated the BLP policy in every version. It may well be there are sources from which a compliant article could be created and you are welcome to do so.--Scott Mac 02:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you refuse a reasonable request to restore the well-sourced article that was deleted out-of-process, I'll just recreate it, though that means additional time and effort on my part.   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that was "well sourced" you should not be a Wikipedia administrator, and you should certainly not be editing BLPs. I will be be watching your work, and if I see you insert negative material with that poor level of sourcing, I will ask arbcom to restrict you from BLP articles (indeed I'd probably block you). I do hope your description of that article as "well-sourced" is a rhetorical flourish.--Scott Mac 02:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Four sources is more than sufficient for a short article. Please stop deleting sourced articles without following the WP:BLP or WP:DELETE policies.

The threat of blocking is uncalled for. If you think I've disrupted the project then take it up with the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk 

My warning was about creating any negative articles with such poor sourcing. I hope you never do.--Scott Mac 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I ever done so? Threatening to block another admin for behavior that's never occurred seems excessively confrontational.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you have done so or not. Although I'm minded to have a close look. I am very disturbed that you consider the inadequate sourcing on Spricigo to be "well sourced". If you were to apply that standard to other negative BLPs you'd be unfit to be an admin, or indeed an editor.--Scott Mac 02:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlike you, I consider the BBC, the National Catholic Reporter, and the Irish Independent, all of which were cited in that article, to be good sources. If you don't, then maybe you aren't fit to be an editor. ;)   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)