Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Yet another Brunodam's sockpuppet on the loose...[edit]

...and apparently I'm his target of his abusive remarks this time. See contributions by: User:Sett19. Also an anonymous IP [1]. Considering that this is rather annoying, I'd be grateful for any timely intervention.--Deusdemona (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've indeffed Sett19. With regard to the IP, which needs a block as well, I encountered an unusual technical situation: the interface says that the IP is already blocked, but it is obviously editing, and the block log reflects a three-month block from August 2009 that would have long since expired by now. Can anyone with more technical background than I on the block interface shed some light on this one? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I found this insult by User:AoV2[2] rather puzzling… and certainly related to this other one: [3]. Is he another sock-puppet even?--Deusdemona (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

God help me for speaking Italian in a very similar way. I merely was refuting the other user′s statement. Brad, try unblocking, then re-blocking this 207.69.139.157 user. It will be no skin off my back. ―AoV² 05:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded to the blocking bug on another forum. — Werdna • talk

WP:PA after final warning by User:Pryde 01[edit]

In January 2010 Pryde 01 (talk · contribs) received a final warning[4] for making personal attacks [5][6]. After warning Pryde 01 about edit warring at Sam Neill, I've received a personal attack on my talk page[7]. XLerate (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The final warning was too long ago (January 24) to be acted upon. I have issued (or I will momentarily issue) a new one. I can safely assume that being born in NI doesn't mean you can't change your citizenship! The user is tantalisingly close to violating WP:3RR anyway. If he reverts again in the 24 hour period, or continues to vandalise the page or attack any user in the next week or so after his final warning, WP:AIV will happily gobble him up.
This is, assuming, that Sam Neill is a New Zealander! :P SGGH ping! 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I checked, born to NZ military parents in NI. If my parents were on holiday in Greece when I was born that wouldn't make me Greek. SGGH ping! 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this SGGH. That's right, citizenship can change, and be by descent. The Washington Post says he's a New Zealander[8], as does the man himself[9]. XLerate (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As a by-note I was born in NI, moved to Australia when young and have both UK and Aus citizenship. I don't know what the substance of the argument is, but one's UK citizenship is not cancelled by obtaining citizenship elsewhere - I'd have to actually formally renounce it to lose it. Orderinchaos 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Roger, take to WP:AIV if you see any further transgressions. SGGH ping! 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've taken him to AIV for this nonsense. SGGH ping! 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw, was just on the way to AIV, sorry for that. XLerate (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
AIV have bounced it back here waiting for this to resolve itself. This report is resolved, so if another admin could deal with the last personal attack for me, would be appreciated. It's going stale now. Thanks. SGGH ping! 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Serial spammer[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by an admin.

Janine Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - Adding a promotional link to many articles, won't listen to warnings to stop. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Now blocked, routine WP:COI in some areas and just not getting it in others. The motive is not commercial here, the promotion os of a charitable enterprise. A bit of kindness might go a long way if anyone is warm and generous today. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray william johnson[edit]

Resolved: Deleted and salted by Redvers. —DoRD (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across this while stub-sorting and tried to tidy it up by Moving it to the correct capitalisaion - this failed, as creation of Ray William Johnson has been prevented (I see it's been deleted A7 four times). Presumably this article needs to be deleted and its recreation prevented? PamD (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black (legal threat?)[edit]

After a cadre of sockpuppets were blocked, controversial author Edwin Black has now issued an on-wiki Cease & Desist notice and accusations that he and others have been "censored" and "publicly defamed". Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Block the account for legal threats and direct them to WP:OTRS. Woogee (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved admin to assist. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Did he actually make a legal threat? Acting like a pompous idiot isn't the same as making a legal threat, and while he uses legal language, he doesn't seem to be threatening a lawsuit. He requested they cease and desist, but did not provide any consequences for failing to do so, only a contact e-mail for questions. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
A Cease and Desist notice is the step right before legal action is taken. I doubt someone would make a cease and desist notice without the concurrent implication that if you don't stop you're going to get sued. It's intended as a chilling effect against Blaxthos. Mr. Black's accounts should be blocked and he should be directed to OTRS. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If it's the step right before, and not an actual legal threat, then it gets treated as such, specifically, we warn the user. There's a reason we have the template warning for it. He hasn't issued an actual legal threat yet, so a block is premature. I've warned him on his talk page, so he knows the line, but for now, I don't think any further action is needed. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
A C&D notice is not the step before the threat, it is the step right before legal action. In most contemporary contexts, a C&D notice is considered a legal threat (as in, a threat of legal action). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If it were an actual, formal cease and desist, I'd agree. But just because he chose to use the term "cease and desist" instead of "stop and refrain" doesn't make it a legal threat. If he escalates in spite of the warning, report it, but blocking over word choice without a threat is unreasonable. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should still point him towards OTRS. If nothing else, it may make him stop socking. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured it out and did it myself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wasn't necessarily advocating any particular path of adjudication. :) Should the comment in question be struck, removed, or left online? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
He persisted after the warning and got blocked. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, if a sock or other malcontent tells someone to "cease and desist", one could warn the user to "cease and desist using the term 'cease and desist'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from using the term 'cease and desist'. (oh dear) this comment should be read as humour Orderinchaos 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from telling others to cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" to request that people cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" when requesting people cease and desist.:p In conclusion...I don't see a legal threat in the above diff. Using legal terminology does not equal a legal threat. Though the comments regarding Blaxthos in this diff [10] are alarming and IMO reason enough for blocking regardless of the legal threat issue. Sarah 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Firmly agreed. Orderinchaos 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I think, to quote Theresa from another thread, STFU is so much more succinct and unequivocal :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Black's original language, if you go all the way to the start of the thread, is clearly intended to suggest a legal threat. On the other hand, I believe I once used the C&D phrase in a warning myself without actually intending a legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here, am I correct in seeing that we have likely blocked "award-winning New York Times bestselling American author and journalist Edwin Black" (as he's described in our article on him)? The person referred to (above) by Blaxthos as "controversial author Edwin Black"? Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who you are, if you start actively trying to out other editors, you can't edit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Cease and desist has entered general usage and so I don't think this can be construed as a legal threat- it appears to me that he was just using the phrase. Perhaps to give himself an inflated sense of importance, perhaps out of frustration, perhaps to put the frighteners on but he didn't mention any consequences so it's not really a threat of any sort, in my opinion. This part of my post is obiter dictum and that ANI should apply stare decisis but that doesn't make it a legal threat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "cease and desist" is general, but "I am now seeking the identity and corporate presence of Blaxthos or the representative of Blaxthos so I may contact him or her through traditional appropriate responsible means as provided by law." is pretty specific. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Not that this would likely work, but maybe you could "shame him" a little bit, and tell him you would have expected better behavior from a prize-winning author. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Outing[edit]

I am placing this message on ANI to note that I have received real-life confirmation that Mr. Black is attempting to find out my real name, so that his "people" can "mail [me] some things." I find it particularly disturbing to learn that Mr. Black has setup a mail alias for the express purpose of stalking me and/or the gathering of my personal information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am dealing with Mr. Black who has contacted us through OTRS regarding the article about him. Any further issues relating to him should be routed to me, either through my talk or by email if they are sensitive. Continuing to discuss the matter onwiki is unlikely to be productive (although of course I am not ordering you to stop).
We cannot control what Mr. Black does offwiki, although we can block him until he withdraws the legal threats etc. (and indeed have). Stifle (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem -- I have no interest in continued discussion that could exacerbate the situation; my intent here is only to give proper notice as to the additional developments. I will address any new information directly to Stifle. Thanks for the help, all! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

anon IP user 67.155.172.162[edit]

I came across this edit by 67.155.172.162. It was reverted by a bot before I could do so. Do we do anything about pseudo-death threats like this? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you review its list of so-called "contributions", you'll see it's only being used for vandalism. Someone needs to put a lengthy block on that IP and take it out of circulation for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've {{anonblock}}ed it for a month. It's a static IP and looks like a school in Manassas, Virginia. Rodhullandemu 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

This user Tadija has violated 1RR/Week in Kosovo [11] [12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

(cur) (prev) 20:16, 4 April 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (108,059 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Mladifilozof; This is not main article for this subject. POV. (TW)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 14:34, 1 April 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (108,203 bytes) (rv POV image removal. Those are highly related) (undo)-- LONTECH  Talk  18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little late, but he's got similar blocks for edit warring in the past so I've blocked him for 72 hours. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peace Scouts[edit]

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Peace Scouts. I agree with Euryalus. There should be some D in this BRD cycle... –xenotalk 16:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Several editors are meatpuppet canvassing and violating WP:POINT at this disambig page. There are so many disambigs in really sorry shape, yet they've chosen this one to target. I've asked politely that they stop, and they continue. It's unnecessary and it's getting old. This disambig is used by the Scouting WikiProject, and is not filled with pointless trivia or dozens of redlinks. It's not precisely within the letter of the rules, but it does follow the spirit, which these users are not doing. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I hate to break it to you, but they were making the page comply with WP:MOSDAB, and you were reverting their legitimate changes. I've restored the page to the correct version. Please don't change it back to one which violates MOSDAB. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Joe, out of respect for you and the consistently good work you do, I will be as polite as I can. You don't need to "break" anything to me, I am fully aware of MOSDAB, and I am sure you have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically the bit about Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express. I am just as sure that those editors have not read it, or if so, disregard it. That disambig was perfectly fine as it was, compared to hundreds I have come across in shit shape. How do you or those editors justify those other disambigs remaining in that condition, in light of this badgering? This is pure and simple bullying, in fact my page was 3RR tagged just to push that WP:POINT. Copying this to your talkpage just in case you are not watching this page. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Remember that just because there are other pages which fail to meet the guidelines doesn't mean that this page can flout the guidelines without a really good reason for it. I'm not trying to "justify" anything, and I doubt the other editors are, either (not sure, though, since I've never worked with them before). It's not wikilawyering to try to get all pages to meet the guidelines, and in this case, the version of the page you were promoting didn't even meet the spirit of the guideline. If you think the guideline is wrong and should be changed, you are welcome to propose a change to it. As for you receiving a 3RR warning, I have no control over what other editors do. If you have a concern about the warning, I suggest taking it up with the editor who gave the warning. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Further to Nihonjoe's comment, this seems like a fairly slow-moving disagreement over whether the original format, or one that more strictly follows MOSDAB, provides a more user-friendly layout. I notice no one has presented their views on the talk page - in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, this might be worth a go. Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
That's actually a good suggestion, I will try it but at this point I will be genuinely surprised if any one of those users will join any discussion. Thanks Euryalus. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
So far you haven't put forth any actual argument against modifying the page except that other pages are worse. If you can actually explain why this page would be better if not modified, yes, that just might be more productive. Propaniac (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Back Down 2[edit]

Resolved: Speedy deleted (G3) by Graeme Bartlett. Jarkeld (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Closed. --Smashvilletalk 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Smailliwsemaj[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 48 hrs and will be given a short lead. –xenotalk 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block on Smailliwsemaj (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for disruptive editing by Tone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) expired about half an hour ago and was followed almost instantly by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone&diff=354154127&oldid=354150727 this], which I reverted, and then this. I think anotherr block should be given serious consideration. Smailliwsemaj notified of this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They also created this page, and until recent had "f**k off all the people who write on my page. I'll do what I like you w***rs!" on their talk page. They have also been disrupting various music articles, inserting false information and inappropriately recreating articles closed as redirects at AFD. He also removed this section. Aiken 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked by Rodhullandemu. Aiken 18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They've been blocked 48 hours by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs); but based on their attitude and comments it doesn't appear that editing in a collaborative environment is within their grasp. –xenotalk 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked for 48 hours, but depending on their talk page resonse, I might feel inclined to reconsider this (in an upwards, and unlimited, direction). Rodhullandemu 18:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see what net positive this person has to our project, and why the block is not indefinite. I've had nothing but problems with this user: constant disruption, blaming it all on a relative, and making idle threats against other editors. Not the kind of editor we should be accomodating. Aiken 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
He started out as a good contributor but seems to have gone off the rails recently; he also seems to want to have it all his own way. If he gives an indication that this will not continue, maybe 48 hours will convince him of this. Otherwise, I'd be quite happy to make his next block his last. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm inclined to agree- we shouldn't tolerate threats of "you will be sorry" to anybody, never mind to the blocking admin half an hour after your block expires. However, I think Rodhullandemu's method of dealing with it is sensible- if they don't take to this block kindly, it can be increased and their talk page locked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. I agree with said above, the extended block is appropriate here. The user has been around for a while, let us hope he begins contributing in a more constructive manner. Otherwise, blocks will get longer... --Tone 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell[edit]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reverted an edit to Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here: [13] with the edit summary "rv whitewash". You will be aware that the subject is blocked under the account James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), also that the subject is a controversial figure. He has complained about the specific revert. Trying to be fair to all sides here, I believe that:

  • user:Keystroke was making a good-faith effort to address legitimate concerns over the article.
  • user:NeilN identified that some of the removed material was reliably sourced and reverted but chose his summary poorly, failing to assume good faith of Keystroke. I do not think this is characteristic or habitual and acknowledge I have done worse myself.

Bell is clearly incensed over past edits to the article and is making demands in respect of individuals concerned, which are not my place to address, being mainly to do with past conduct. I have passed these to the Arbitration Committee to see if any action is required. The only recent edit which Bell has brought to my attention is NeilN's revert. It's clear to me that Bell's major issue right now is that he is blocked, and he considers this to be an abuse perpetrated by Wikipedia. Everything else is secondary and rubbing salt into the wound. I have two questions:

  • Is any action required at this point?
  • What can be learned from this complaint, to prevent future issues?

As an aside, Bell states that all edits by Skomorokh are suspect. I cannot pick them apart form other subsequent edits by Keystroke and others which are clearly welcome. I would ask others to join me in reviewing the content of the article and ensuring that everything there is reliable sourced and neutrally stated, since despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text. It is understandable that he is not willing to co-operate, especially while blocked, so it's down to us I guess. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely could have chosen a more tactful edit summary. I explained my concerns here. --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Bell's unwillingness to cooperate, I believe it has little to do with him being blocked. He was repeatedly asked to point out specific article concerns when he was free to edit. This continued when he started socking. He invariably replied with accustions about other editors' behaviour, as I suspect he's doing now. --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The main part of Bell's block is his refusal to stop with personal attacks about a good-faith admin trying to point out our policies to him, along with others. We asked him several times to make his posts small and concise, not the tl;dr paragraphs he was posting. He responded with more tl;dr posts insulting others, and his talk page was locked. This block, as said, is not only about unwillingness to cooperate, but unwillingness to stop with personal attacks and treat others civilly.— dαlus Contribs 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd advise a policy of actively not going there. Let's focus on the here and now. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to formulate "lessons learnt" from this situation. None of us want inaccurate info in the article or something that has undue weight. At the same time, subjects of articles need to realize they can't control the content (I believe Gogo Dodo initially explained this to Bell) and should be told how to raise their concerns (done, multiple times including the formulation of a new template by you). Keystroke has gone through the article, fixing problematical areas. As someone who helps out on WP:BLPN, I can say all these things happen with any "regular" BLP article. Perhaps we could create a "we know you're upset but your edits do not conform to the guidelines" template based off of Template:Blocked subject --NeilN talk to me 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking, he has come here and had issues with his article and as a newbie with his own article he has has some issues, he has identified with otrs, I would support another try, remind him to stay civil, give him a list of the policy and guidelines and give him another chance (last chance). It would likely all end in tears though as all he wants to do is change or remove some content he disputes on his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing. He hasn't identified article issues with OTRS per Guy: "despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text". What makes you think this behaviour is going to change, given the folks at OTRS are probably more patient and sensitive than the average editor? --NeilN talk to me 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That is an issue, if he won't tell us exactly what his issues are, how can we investigate? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's my concern. What I've seen largely duplicates the material already posted here, which focuses on particular editors and edits long in the past (by Wikipedia standards, anyway). I am certain that if any one of the emails he has sent were posted anywhere other than his own talk page, he'd be blocked again. All that's going to do is piss him off even more. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to sympathize with Bell's unwillingness to proofread an article he dislikes and list the errors he spots, thereby legitimizing the rest of it. I'd frankly support deleting the Bell article (he is basically a fringe character like Barbara Schwarz) and adding a sentence or two about Bell to the assassination market article. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is a bit bloated we could trim it back. It's getting about 30 views a day which is a pretty low attraction and importance level Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
What you call bloated, others might call detailed. Page views should not dictate the length of the article. Regardless, changes to the article content should be discussed on its talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article is not here to be awarded a medal for its detailed informative highly viewed content is it? 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean? --NeilN talk to me 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Bell doesn't like the article because he can't control it, his problems with it are the fact that he can't make it match 'HIS view of himself and his problems with the federal govt. Gutting it isn't a solution to the problem. Fixing all details with cites to reliable sources is. The solution for Bell himself is easy, leave his ass blocked and whack his socks when they show up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't really stand up. He's read it in sufficient detail that he is familiar with the edits of individual editors and has cited diffs in respect of editorial conduct. I do not get the feeling that the presence of the article is offensive to him (cf. Daniel Brandt), the usual interpretation of his statements in respect of the article seems to be that he wants everybody who has ever added anything he dislikes summarily banned from Wikipedia, himself unblocked and the article left to only sympathetic edits, which is not likely to happen. What we can, and should, do, is to ensure that the article is written to the highest standards of accuracy and neutrality. We can't fix the fact that there were past issues, we can fix any present issues and should do so, with or without his co-operation. That will need the input of people familiar with the subject, I think, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to anything. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If it were up to me I'd delete it anyway, but yes, the article needs a lot of cruft gone if it stays. In my view it's extremely hard to deliver neutrality for a subject like that though. Significant points of view that must be included for the article to meaningfully conform to WP:NPOV, must simultaneously be excluded because they are documented only by sources that are too fringe to conform to WP:BLP. If an article can't be edited to conform to both policies at the same time, and quite a few can't, I see deletion as the only remedy. (In practice WP gets around this with a Humpty-Dumpty redefining of "significant" as "approved by a certain class of media outlets", but I see that as a cop-out that leads to retaining distorted articles).

As another issue, given the history of this article subject's off-wiki activities, I'd be uncomfortable editing the article from either an exposed IP address or a personally identifiable account. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by significant points of view. NPOV does not mean that fringe views should be included and that the views that are included should have equal weight. Neutrality does not mean that every point should have a counter-point. Also, whether or not IP's can "safely" edit the article is not really a valid consideration for deletion. --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I use "significant" to mean what it means in English, and deleting an article is the exact opposite of adding fringe views to it, but ANI isn't the right place for a philosophy discussion. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we should delete the article because Bell may try to have WP editors "assassinated" if we dont comply with his requests to edit the article as he see's fit? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm just saying I'm uncomfortable personally editing the article under the circumstances. I'm a big supporter of anonymous editing for reasons like this, even though I don't currently practice it. It's a separate issue from my sentiment towards deletion based on limitations on the types of documentation we can use biasing the article. Given that the article will be kept under foreseeable circumstances, I do think it needs cleanup. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, under the circumstances. I don't think he's crazy but he's sure as hell angry. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yow, there is even WP:EMDE which I didn't know about. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've commented at User talk:James dalton bell#An uncivil policy. This is Yet Another Trampled Newbie. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Read it. About the most civil thing I can say is that I sharply disagree with your assessment. --NeilN talk to me 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your sympathy seems misplaced. A "cypto-anarcist" can presumably take care of himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced indeed. This user was not blocked for his views on the article, he was blocked for continuously personally attacking anyone that tried to help him. No biting happened, it was all on his end. Try reading all relevant material before commenting like you know the issue when you really don't.— dαlus Contribs 03:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was away on vacation when this thread was active - is the matter considered closed? If not, what are the remaining issues? Thank you Guy for starting this thread, and your high level of professionalism. Keystroke (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Zieten Hussars[edit]

Someone please have a look at the recent editing history of that article and the relevant article talk page, User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Zieten Hussars and User talk:De728631#Zieten Hussars to help determine who was acting disruptive here, if at all, and how to proceed with the article. I decided to not take this to dispute resolution since the two of us apparently can't even agree on who is being disruptive in this case. De728631 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So you decided instead to post on WP:Dramaboard with a dispute in which you cannot "agree on who is being disruptive"? The wording of your request makes it explicitly a case for DR. You're not asking for admin action here (block, block review, arbcom enforcement, censure, second opinion on another admin's actions, etc.). Whether there's an "incident" or not is perhaps debatable, but from your own summary, this isn't an AN/I issue.  Frank  |  talk  00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The dispute is rather about agreeing how to properly edit and improve an article in the first place, it's about procedure and about what can be denied and reverted as unproductive and disruptive from scratch. So I am actually asking for another opinion but if this is not for AN/I at all, I'll take it to the dispute resolution. De728631 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion now. De728631 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Just for the record from the history of the article:
  • 27 March: De728631 move an article page from moved Zieten Hussars to Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3. -- as is usual on Wikipedia this was a bold move and there is nothing wrong with this.
  • 28 March: I moved it back with the comment "moved Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 to Zieten Hussars over redirect: reverse move, not clear that English language sources support the new name".
  • 28 March: I also reverted the changes to the first paragraph (to accommodate the renamed article) which I acknowledge reverted some other changes, but AFAICT they are sourced from an unreliable (web page) German source.
  • 28 March: On the talk page of the article I suggested that if De728631 wished to proceed with a move (s)he should put in a WP:RM request. But instead of doing so
  • 2 April: De728631 moved Zieten Hussars to Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 with no additional discussion on the talk page.
  • 3 April: I reverted with the comment: "revert a conversational move, made without an WP:RM request" and
  • 3 April: I reverted the changes to the text "rv to last version by PBS. Being bold is one thing reverting without discussing it on the talk page is disruptive)"
I placed my comment on the talk page on 28 March 2010, De728631 did not reply until 4 April 2010. Having reverted both the text and the page move on 2 April. As to why this ANI has been bought is open to question, because if De728631 knows enough to bring an ANI then (s)he ought to know enough about wikiquette to know not to re-revert changes and page moves without first seeking a consensus on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
In hindsight it now appeared to me that I totally missed the comment by PBS on the article talk page while restoring my previous versions of the article because I first replied on his personal user talk page prior to re-reverting the move. Only then did I find PBS's note on the article talk and apparently did not check its date. This ANI was however brought up in search of neutral opinions on the matter which were eventually found elsewhere though. Having totally missed the early article talk, I was also quite annoyed that PBS had reverted my edits again and seemingly without a proper reasoning - but there I was wrong. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable content on user subpages[edit]

I have just come across this:

This user has a lot of other Lutheran church-related pages 'in progress' as user pages, and while they all look like they have problems (no references, POV, etc), i can understand that works 'in progress' are just that. The three i've cited, however, seem inappropriate. I'm not sure, but they seem to violate WP:NOTAMANUAL, as well as poosibly representing a kind of spam, and also probably not demonstrating notability. Is it enough to mention possible issues to the user, or should these actually be deleted? Any thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I never planned to move these pages into article space... I was just using wikipedia as a place to edit and view my personal work. I will save the content and someone can delete the pages. Thank you. Americanman095 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios[edit]

Resolved: Madz76 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) blocked as a sock of Madz67 (talk · contribs). -FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not too long ago, Madz67 (talk · contribs) was indef'd on terms of repeated copyvios after it was brought up on WP:ANI. S/he returned as a sockpuppet under the account Madz76 (talk · contribs), I thought she may have decided to turn over a new leaf and stop uploading copyvios, however after given various warning s/he continues to upload images without a source nor fair use template. I'm sure the user in good faith, but s/he keeps on deleting sections without explanation and adds WP:BLP risking information without a source and simply tags the claims with a {{fact}} tag, assuming it'll be okay. Plus, refuses to reply to any other users. I was wondering whether any admins could help? + TNW 17:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC/Ash[edit]


Shampoo scandal[edit]

A few minutes wasted. Nothing else really to see. Also, WP:DENY.— dαlus Contribs 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved: Stop wasting everyone's time please
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is currently a claim on the article about shampoo that it is a hair caring product. Wikipedia has a poliy, WP:RS requiring claims made on articles to be backed up by inline citations of reliable sources. For this reason, I add a "Citation needed" tag to the claim. See this diff.User:Karenjc then comes and removes the tag. I explain the situation on their talk page and then User:Blanchardb removes the tag when I add it back saying that it isn't challenged. Well, I am challenging it, because it is not referenced as such from a reliable sources, as Wikipedia requires for claims made on articles. --9 to 8 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require claims for the obvious. Please go play somewhere else.— dαlus Contribs 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And to you Deadelus. Have you seen all the diffs? Do you know the importance of sourcing?--9 to 8 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I see is an obvious troll.— dαlus Contribs 07:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is against Wikipedia policy to accuse someone of being a troll. Even if it weren't, does following policy make one a troll? If you have seen all the diffs I have provided you will see that I am trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy on referencing claims. --9 to 8 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Its pretty obvious to everyone here you're a troll. That aside, however, you might as well just give up, because none of us are ever going to take your side.— dαlus Contribs 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not expecting you or anyone else to "take my side" per se. Just uphold Wikipedia policies.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, what else is it? Wood comes from trees. [citation needed] SGGH ping! 07:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Given we have an account that can use cite needed templates on edit one and can wikilink to WP:RS on edit 2 [20] I feel a big dose of WP:DENY coming on. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes Pedro. Given that we have a policy called WP:AGF and also WP:NOTSOCK (or similar) capped off with the fact that many editors start off as anonymous anyway I do not see any denying needed at all. Read my reply above of my intentions.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually AGF isn't policy. Neither is WP:DON'T-CITE-THE-BLOODY-OBVIOUS but it should be. Pedro :  Chat  07:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
We're not going to give you want you want, so you're better off just playing somewhere else.— dαlus Contribs 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Your username[edit]

Resolved: Done. REDVERSSay NO to Commons bullying 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

not sure if this is the place to put it, but could someone please block this user and protect the user and talk pages as an example user? Cheers, SS(Kay) 08:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Okip canvassing[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm calling an end to this timesink. There is substantial support for Okip to consider mentorship; editors may offer this, or he may ask someone directly or via Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. For the rest, Okip should take extra care not to give the appearance of canvassing for WP:AFD. If there are wider or more persistent issues they should be handled via WP:RFC/U. Rd232 talk 13:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a blatant but creative form of WP:CANVASSing AFDs.

The technique looks like a ruse to evade WP:CANVASS: issue a barnstar to anyone who has voted the way he likes in an AFD, and link to a list of similar AFDs, labelling he link as a "purge".

See e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

The last one is particularly revealing, because the editor Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was given a barnstar for "for his iincedible work in the bus route purge." That word "purge" is not neutral, and Dew kane's contributions consist solely of pasting identical text to a range of AFDs, regardless of the state of the articles or any evidence presented in the discussion: see e.g. [26], [27], [28].

So the barnstar was actually awarded for voting, not for article rescue, and was a device to alert that editor (and any others reading that page) to Okip's view on a series of AFDs.

I asked Okip to stop canvassing, and the response was a reply on my talk accusing me of "bullying". I replied at Opik's talk[29], and the message was promptly deleted[30], so it has been read.

Opik has also left a blatantly partisan message at the article rescue talk page [31] (again referring to a "purge") ... and now appears to be writing guidance for others on how to canvass [32]. The article rescue squadron does some great work in improving poor articles and demonstrating the notability of a topic, and it is pity to see it being abused in this way as a vehicle for trying to circumvent the restrictions on votestacking.

Okip also closed a discussion in which zie had just voted, rather than leaving the job for an uninvolved editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not about time that this editor was topic-banned from anything to do with deletion-related pages? It appears that far too many people's time is being wasted here. Black Kite 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It is about time you stop threatening editors Black Kite, when there is no rule breaking, this is a pretty bad form of bullying, and unfortunately not the first time. You could not possible be more biased in this discussion. Okip 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Brown haired girl, you know the rules, yet you continue to bully me. I have started to write this guide, because I continue to see editors such as yourself, bully editors for not breaking any rules at all. If you refuse to follow our rules, and harrass editors who follow our rules, Brown haired girl, you should not be an administrator. Okip 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Except that BHG is exactly right. There would not be any requirement for me to post such issues had you not behaved like you did. I would also add User:Dew Kane to this proposed topic-ban, as their recent AfD contributions are nothing but copy-and-pasted versions of "it exists, so it's notable". Black Kite 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I will ask you the same exact thing Black Kite: Why is there a template to do what I just did Black Kite? Okip 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Okip, you are not a how-to guide for escaping policy. I only had to look at two of the diffs above to see you are canvassing, and to promote yourself as the "resolver of situations" when it comes to others being dealt with for taking part in the canvassing that you promote is not acceptable either. If you want people to be made aware of AfDs so they can make their own judgement then read up on "deletion sorting" to ensure AfDs are being flagged up for the relevant WikiProjects. Going around recruiting like-minded users to create a gang of Okip-followers to head-off AfDs you don't agree with will not be tolerated. SGGH ping! 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, your bad faith and bullying truly knows no bounds. I have no idea how you became and adminstrator. I have followed all of the rules, and yet you continue to harrass me. Okip 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether you genuinely believe that blatantly partisan alerts to a selective audience are neutral, or whether you are just rying it on. But either way, don't engage in votestacking, and then you won't feel bullied when you are asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a reason we don't have "rules" per say on WP, because it is the concepts and practice that is more important that any "letter of law" that may exist on WP. Even if what the actions are are squeaky-clean of the written text, the intent of the guideline and past behavior are much more valuable to go on. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Notifying editors who edited the article which was nominated for deletion
Page Rule Template Important notes
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."[1] "For an article you did not nominate: {{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~" There is no "all sides" requirement. You can notify anyone who has participated in the discussion that you wish.

What part of this rule don't you editors understand? Again, if you are threatening editors when they are strictly following the rules, this is bullying and harassment.

What would brown haired girls notification here of the MFD be? Okip 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic? Resolute 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So is the notification of contributors to articles, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and the notification of wikiprojects. There is no basis in this complaint. Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
For one, your characterization of BHG's nominations as "purges" is deliberately slanted terminology designed to generate sympathy/support for your position. Second, your invitations and barnstars are targeted towards like-minded users only. You are attempting to influence the outcome. I generally sympathize with your aims, but dude, you can only WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for so long. Resolute 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are doing is writing "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion [which] compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." This is because you appear to be selecting people (and bribing them with barnstars it seems) who concur with your "purge" assessment of the AfDs. Furthermore, stop accusing us of threatening you, we aren't - this is Wikipedia. SGGH ping! 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a template to do what I just did SGGH? Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The box posted above by Okip is not from WP:CANVASS, it's from Okip's own how-to-votestack guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature, and it directly contradicts the long-standing guidance at WP:CANVASS#Votestacking, which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a template to do what I just BrownHairedGirl? If it is against the rules, why is there a template for this? Why is there a specific rule which states it is okay to do what I just did? Again, if I am following the rules, and you are threatening me, and now what the rules are, (which with over 150,000 edits, you probably d0) this is a form of bullying and harassment. Explaining the rules so that editors such as yourself no longer are able to threaten and bully others is perfectly acceptable.Okip 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, the problem here is not notifying people. It's who you are notifying and how you are doing it. You are absolutely not neutral, and you're posting messages in a completely biased manner. See my message on the talk page of your guide. Aiken 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You. Are. Not. Following. The. Rules. If you look at WP:CANVASS you will see a chart (it is green and pink) that illustrates why your actions have violated that page's policy (think POV, selective messages, etc.) I suggest that Okip takes a warning about his canvassing, and further canvassing can result in the restrictions that anti-canvassing policy suggests (which is an eventual blocking period to prevent disruption). I can find nothing in Okip's defence that is convincing, and plenty of evidence from the other parties supporting the original ANI report's statement. Another admin can check in to close/finalise as I have now voted along with BHG in the MfD. SGGH ping! 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, its about time BrownHairedGirl was banned fron deletion related pages, just seems to be an editor full of disruptive hot air who will stop at nothing to get her own way. Jeni (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: User:SGGH removed this comment for no reason

Yes, it's called an edit conflict and was not on purpose. Thank you. SGGH ping! 17:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually to be fair at this point, I'd support a block of you for your false accusations, bad faith assumptions and inability to act in a civil manner with someone you don't agree with.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Leave Okip/Ikip/Travb alone!!! It's a wikipedia rule that all criticism/disagreement with him is bullying and harrassment!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
u forgot user:inclusionist ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not helping. However, if we have past examples it would be easy to craft a restriction forbidding future infractions. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I am following the rules. What part of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people do you not understand? Why do we have these rules, if editors can then disregard these rules at their leisure, threatening editors for following those rules.
As far as "how" I am notifying them, it was with a neutral message. I can notify anyone who has contributed to the article, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people.
giving barnstars to editors is not against any rules. This is a bogus posting by an administrator who knows better. Okip 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Okip, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor" "for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" are completely not neutral. See the talk page of your guide for my suggestion of how you could go about it. The thing is, you've managed to neutrally notify in other places, so it's not like you're incapable of doing so. Aiken 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Please reference, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor"
"for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? Please quote SPECIFIC policy, otherwise your complaint has no basis in fact. I quoted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and no one has explained how me following these rules (which even have a template for doing what I did) violates canvassing. Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
From the page you keep quoting, it says "Keep in mind that all such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." Your messages were biased, so you did not follow the rules. Therefore you violated the canvassing guideline. Referring to somebody nominating articles for deletion as "purging" is not neutral. Aiken 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? I don't see that in canvassing policy, anywhere on wikipedia in fact.Okip 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself too much, but as I said above, the policy clearly states that POV notification in order to get a certain kind of support at an AfD is as BHG said, vote-stacking. It says it clearly on the policy page, and in my opinion your notifications are clearly not neutral. SGGH ping! 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, how did I violate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, why is there this template to do what I just did? {{AFDNote}}Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I can actually explain it any other way. You violated WP:CANVASS. SGGH ping! 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not see how comments thanking people for having !voted a certain way is canvassing for support, because they have already supported. It might conceivably be, if people regarded the barnstar from a particular editor as something so desirable that one would !vote in a certain way in the hope of receiving one. With all due respect to Okip, I do not think that's exactly the case here. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
{{AFDNote}} found on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion My notification

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[{{{1}}}]] ==

Ambox warning pn.svg
An editor has nominated [[{{{1}}}]], an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]] and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:London Buses route 372]] ==

London Buses route 372, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372. Okip 15:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[33]

Okip 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, I even said you managed to post a neutral comment which you did, which was why I was so surprised at the non-neutral comments left at other people's talk pages, along with barnstars. The above example of yours is exactly how people should be notified. Claims of "purging" are not. Aiken 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, it is permissible to notify people of AfDs, but the POV you are using means it goes from notification to canvassing. Again. SGGH ping! 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Question: How can you canvass someone with a barnstar who has ALREADY replied in a AFD? Do you know how absurd this all sounds? Okip 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black states that Ikip " is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He was blocked for 12 hours in January "for repeated canvassing en masse" Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller, another editor who I have had longterm conflicts with. This is like a drawer full of bad pennies.
It is important to point out that A Man In Black lost his adminship over blocking me in that case.
The block on January was bunk, I just decided since it was only for 12 hours, I wouldn't fight it. It was by an admin who one former arbitration member aptly called "non-impartial", his next selective block of me (for doing exactly what an arbitration member did [the arbitration member was not blocked]) was reversed, and several admins and former arbitration members roundly condemned his block. Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. Okip, you can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to your heart's content, but frankly if you continue to violate WP:CANVASS so blatantly the outcomes are not going to be to your liking. And if you wish to take that as bullying or harassment, I think you need to look a bit closer to home. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Talking about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have asked several editors how I violated policy by giving barnstars to editors who already commented in the AFD...Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is sensible to link these AFDs together because of their similarity. Much aggravation would have been avoided if BHG had presented her case in the form of group nominations rather than the 20 or so nominations which we seem to have already. There are already lists of these related nominations in other places such as the project pages and it is a good service to inform editors of their existence if they have an interest in this sort of topic. The more participation we get in these discussions which affect hundreds of articles, the better the consensus that we will establish. Okip should be commended for his actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • You are correct about the AFD bundling. However, such communications must still comply with WP:CANVASS. Okip's don't. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The reason I didn't bundle was that it seemed to me to be better to consider each article on the individual merits of that topic. I took heed of the comments from some editors who advocated bundling, so I bundled the last group of AFDs, but was promptly denounced for that, by the same editor who had most vociferously denounced me for nominating them singly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For background, there's been a few no resolution/consensus AN/Is in the past, Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip, Blocked_Ikip_for_canvassing, and User:Ikip_and_forum_shopping for starters. So this has been a long-running point of contention with this user. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, more old "friends". Yep, that was the case where A Man In Black lost his adminship. That arbitration came about directly because of him inproperly blocking me for canvassing. Okip 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ikip I say this as a member of the ARS - actions like this only to serve to marginalise the ARS and its objectives. And people wonder why the ARS is called the "Article Canvassing Squadron" and editors summarily remove rescue templates...[34] --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yet you were still warned. And so far as I remember, our interactions this year included at least one compliment from you which included either the word 'respect' or 'confidence' (this was a comment to someone else I believe), and no complaints from you - so 'longterm conflicts' doesn't seem at all accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking through one of the complaints about him. He closed this article [35], after looking it over and seeing that every single person out of the many that commented said keep. Nothing wrong with that. If someone had posted delete, that'd be different. This is commonly what is done. As for the rest of this, no rule was violated. If you believe someone was done wrong, then go to the page about canvassing and discuss it there, changing it if you believe there is a consensus to do so. And barnstars are always given out to people by other editors, whenever they feel like it, it always someone who does something they like and approve of, obviously. And the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete, as many people unfortunately do. No rule violated, no reason to continue this witchhunt. Dream Focus 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I thought I wrote a note stating something to the effect, "if this is incorrectly closed, please open again" I was not sure if I could close the article with 8 keeps and no deletes right after I !voted on it, I just !voted on it, guess I can't. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "No rule was violated". Well, apart from the one about closing an AfD which you have voted in, of course. No, it doesn't really matter - the AfD was clearly heading for a SNOW keep - but it just illustrates yet again that Okip doesn't really have any regard for how things are done properly around here - i.e. "policy". It needs to stop. And I liked the bit about people midlessly voting delete, coming from a member of the ARS. Almost had to clean coffee off my keyboard there. Thanks.Black Kite 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Your continued partisan attacks need to stop, editors harrassing editors for following policy need to stop.
        Regarding my closure, I apologize for closing the AFD myself. I dont recall ever dealing with closing snowball keeps before. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
        • As soon as you stop behaving against policy, then people will stop "harrassing" you (translation: calling you out on policy violations). It's not rocket science and you're clearly not an unintelligent person, so I don't think it's too difficult for you to comprehend this. Black Kite 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Having looked at the AFD again, I agree, he shouldn't have closed it. I didn't notice the nominator was still against it. If even one person doesn't agree with the rest, it should remain open. And things are often closed when everyone is in agreement. Just a simple mistake I believe. As for how things are done, well, yes, you see that is how things are done quite often. What do you mean about how things are done properly? Things are done quite differently in different parts of Wikipedia, depending on the whims of whoever is around at the time. No rule was violated by his alleged canvassing, it clearly not canvassing by the definition of canvassing on the proper Wikipedia page about that, so no reason why he shouldn't be able to do what he wants, if no rule is violated. Dream Focus 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Dream Focus seems not to have checked out my initial complaint, at the top of this section. Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was invited to the ARS for mindlessly saying keep. I don't know whether Dew Kane even read any of the articles in whose AFDs he !voted, but none of his long series of comments reveal any knowledge of state of the articles, and AFAICS he had made no edit to any of them. Other editors on both sides had taken time to read the articles and discuss things, but not Dew Kane. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Once again, no rule exist on who you can and can not invite to join a Wikiproject. And Dew Kane could've read what was said by others, and formed an opinion based on that. I looked through some of those AFD minutes ago, and saw where someone had posted links to reliable sources, and based on that said keep in a couple of them. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Dream Focus, do please try to be at least a little consistent. You specifically said above "the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete". But here it was offered to an editor who just mindlessly said an identical "keep" on every occasion, even in article where there were sod all references. If you think that's appropriate grounds to invite someone to ARS, then the Article Rescue Squadron will become a votestacking club rather than an article improvement team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I despair at having to continue to show veteran editors policy and consensus that they should already know.
If this editors extreme copy/pasting is allowed:
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#Copy and pasting same_argument_in_over_a_hundred_Articles_for_deletion
Dew Kane's behavior is allowed. Okip 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh the irony and complete blatant hypocrisy, right here on this page:
"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[36] Is that a neutral notification of the MFD? Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?
Okip 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about Dew Kane's dubious editing pattern though, it's about you. I'd strongly suggest you address that rather than trying to wikilawyer your way away from the issue at hand. Black Kite 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well not surprisingly, the answer is "no": "Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?" I guess it is "okay" to do what you condemn other editors for...Sad. Really sad. Okip 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


I see the original complaint here as an instance of bullying. BHG proposed a number of articles for deletion, apparently anticipating a clear quick consensus on the result desired--or else as an experienced editor, she would have tested the waters with a few nominations first. (Given that ArbCom has previously ruled that trying to overwhelm a process by multiple nominations is actionable misconduct, such was presumably not the intention). The consensus was however not at all what was expected. This is not the result of canvassing, but the result of a number of editors having --in most cases consistently and for a considerable time--a different opinion. The nominator then comes here complaining about a relatively less experienced editor. Others with previous conflicts against him joined in, complaining about his actions in connection with the same group of AfDs--articles about which the community in considerable part agreed with Okip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 20:19, 3 April 2010
Okip is a "relatively less experienced editor"? He's been here since 2005! That's longer than BHG, Black Kite, and you! AniMate 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(Reply to AniMate) BHG has 207K edits. DGG has 75K edits. BK has 30K edits. Okip has 5K edits. Now what was BS? Tan | 39 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Okip=Ikip. Ikip had 55,500 edits. Put them together that's 60,000 edits. AniMate 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected; thanks. Tan | 39 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "attack" Okip; I asked him to refrain from systematic votestacking, and brought the issue to ANI only when the complaint was rejected. Nor do I criticise the actions of those editors who have genuinely tried to rescue to rescue articles by seeking evidence of notability; I disagree with many of their conclusions, but that's the purpose of a discussions, to air and hopefully resolve difft views.
I am very disappointed that DGG, who I know as a prolific article rescuer, is failing to distinguish between article rescue and votestacking; that failure causes me a lot of concern about where ARS is headed. But DGG needn't concern himself with any notion that I am somehow afraid to criticise him, and I assure DGG that if he had engaged in a votestacking exercise like this one, I would not have hesitated to bring it to wider attention. Thankfully, so far as I am aware, he didn't do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I said less experienced not to mean less experienced in editing, but less effective in disputes when they get personal. But I also meant it as a sort of euphemism for less powerful, or perhaps even less well-connected. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Okip is less experienced in disputes? What? Less than who? The entire Arbitration Committee put together? That is the most nonsensical thing I've heard all week. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No violation committed by Okip Canvassing is limited to influencing ongoing discussions; any communication to someone who has already !voted, with no attempt to change their !vote, is not canvassing. Thus, such communications do not need to be neutrally worded. Having said that, it would probably be a good idea if the term "purges" was deprecated, as I can see how that term conjures Stalinesque imagery. Several of the participants above should know better than to use a non-infraction as a rationale (excuse?) to berate Okip. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The motivation is clearly to get those same editors to come and vote on other AfDs. Imagine if I went around barnstarring everyone who voted delete in a contentious AfD I was involved in. You would see it as an attempt to influence those editors to vote my way in other discussions- and rightly so, because there's no other way to interpret that behaviour. It's canvassing. End of story. Reyk YO! 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll also add that the explicit linking to other AfDs, and that appalling How-to-Canvass guide deleted recently make it blatantly obvious that Okip is again trying to rig the AfD process by votestacking. Reyk YO! 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the text here, with the links intact:
"You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue."
The explicit invitation is to improve articles through regular editing. That is, on its face, an allowable statement and a perfectly good sentiment. What you're now asking is that an allowable statement be considered disallowable and a violation of CANVASS solely because of the assumed motivations of the poster. I'll stipulate that Okip wants everything in the world kept for the sake of argument, but nothing in his motivation changes the plain text of the invitation. What you're proposing is that we prosecute Okip for Thoughtcrime rather than for the content of his barnstars. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not the invitation to join the ARS I am objecting to. It is the link to other AfDs he wants people to go vote keep in. The wording of the barnstars leaves no doubt that Okip is trying to get these editors to vote keep for him. Reyk YO! 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what you linked to was posted by Jeni, listing all the other bus articles the same editor nominated at once. And AFD are determined by voting, but by arguments. Dream Focus 10:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify. I didn't say that Okip created the list, and I did not mean to imply that. It doesn't matter who orignially compiled it. My point is that Okip linked to it in most of his barnstar messages because he was trying to get those editors to vote his way on those AfDs. Reyk YO! 10:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. There's a substantial possibility I missed something in all the various diffs that have been posted. Can someone clarify for me when and where Ikip posted a link to a list of still-open AfDs, to editors who'd !voted keep in similar AfDs, that wasn't the general ARS to-be-rescued list? Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The diff above shows a list of articles at AFD that are specifically relevant to the WikiProject that it was posted to. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it's the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged as members of an interested WikiProject will have a good grasp of whether the topic is notable. If Okip posted such a list to any user's talk page asking them to vote in a specified way that would be very different, but where are the diffs?--Michig (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Kww pointed out the specific issue as well on my talk page. I agree that the link to an explicit list of other similar, currently open AfD's was not appropriate. My previous comments had been focused on the ARS invitation/barnstar, which I still find not a violation. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The barnstar isn't problematic at all, IMO. It's everything else. AniMate 20:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I propose the remedy that BHG and Okip, and also BK and Okip, refrain from comments on each other. Discussion on the articles belongs elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, you got me. This appears to be a violation of that (I didn't see the AMIB ArbCom go through. Shame, I liked him). So, what do we do next? Guy (Help!) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Two things that I thought of off the top of my head, so they probably aren't very good: A restriction on the number of talk pages he can post to per X period of time? A independent screener who would have to evaluate the newsletters before they are sent out? NW (Talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this. Scrutiny from both sides here (mass AfD nominations and canvassing allegations) is worthwhile, whatever you think of the merits of either side. I see no evidence that this has degenerated into bullying by either side. We're all grown ups. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Okip's behavior is problematic. BHG and BK are shining a light on it. AniMate 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I concur with AniMate's view. MBisanz talk 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for I/Okip only. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Enforcement by block is pretty straightforward about the steps that should be taken here. Does this need an official ArbCom enforcement filing, though? Tarc (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and redact your comment about bullying above please DGG. which I've now done myself. I won't allow that to stand. If anyone wants to restore it, please read WP:NPA first. Thanks. Black Kite 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support this and all propsals by dgg. As he points out, Okip is a poor newbie editor with dew in his eyes whose only hope is to expand a most perfect compendium of all human knowledge. His opponents present themselves as people who simply disagree with him; but as DGG points out, they're all a bunch of meanhearted bullies. The thin red line should be drawn right here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Not sure that sarcasm is the best idea here, to be honest Bali. Black Kite 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What sarcasm? DGG was a librarian and Ikip/Okip/Travb is apparently a lawyer. Everyone knows that librarians aren't foxes, they're hedghogs. And everyone knows that lawyers are always right! Leave these poor friends of knowledge alone. This place will be tip-top in a jiffy!Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. BHG and BK are doing the right thing. Inclusionist/O/Ikip et al, however has a very long history of canvassing and a keep-everything-at-all-costs approach, and an AC warning to boot—yet here we are yet again. The proper outcome here, is a broad restriction for Okip re canvasing and deletion related activity. Yet-another of Ikip's old friends, Jack Merridew 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The solution to the Ikip/Okip problem is certainly not to make him immune against criticism by punishing people for pointing out the problem. Hans Adler 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) After Jack's comment, I rest my case. It sufficiently clarifies the situation. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Attention. Jack is an evil sockpuppet whose sorcery runs to coding and an idiosyncratic interest in sourcing (outside his specialty). Mr. Adler is something far, far worse: A professional academic (i think he does something in the evil counting profession, or at least in one of its related mathematickal dark arts) They should have no standing against Okip/Ikip/Inclusionist/Travb. (Kudos to DGG for his devestating use of geometric logic).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, as an aside to DGG: Why are allowing this horrible biting of a newbie (inexperienced editor, as you described him) is being allowed to go on by an administrator of your caliber?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would only make sense if BK and BHG were doing something wrong here. For almost every comment (if not all of them) here criticizing Okip's behavior, he seems to use one of three responses - referring to the person as an old "friend" and therefore ignorable, accusing the person of acting in bad faith, harassment, and bullying so they can be ignored, or just ignoring the comment with no reply at all (such as the comment by Mkativerata). If Okip wants people to stop criticizing him, he needs to address people's concerns, not just silence the critics. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The situation is exactly as Hans Adler describes, and I couldn't have put it any better. Ikip/Okip has a long history of canvassing and is a big reason why the ARS is currently the "Keep vote canvassing WikiProject" in all but name. It is not the behaviour of those who criticize him that is the problem here. Reyk YO! 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't support the deletion of the articles in question (BHG's talkpage is still graced by a long explanation as to why), although I do think most of them would work better as a single list than as multiple stand-alone unexpandable stubs. However, BHG is acting perfectly properly here, and Okip is acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum. – iridescent 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Okip has a reasonable perception that he's being attacked, and there's no cause for unilateral action against him. If there's to be a sending of editors to their respective corners, Okip doesn't need to be singled out. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This current discussion does look a lot like cyber-hounding of sorts (no, it is not the same as jumping someone after school, which is why I won't call it "bullying," but it is clearly ganging up on and attacking with hyperbole a perceived opponent as almost all of those lining up against Okip are pretty much the diehard deletionists of the site and ones who mass attack groups of editors off-site, swear at others, call people "idiots," are uninterested when called out for their own incivility, are admittedly just here to "fly the deletionist flag", etc.--things I do not see Okip doing by contrast...). I do NOT include BrownHairedGirl as part of that group as she is not someone I am really all that familiar with. I think any reasonable neutral editor can see the partisanship of the attacks an Okip for what they are: partisan attacks to squash a good faith perceived opponent. Just look at the history of the core of those attacking him and their appalling behavior in this discussion alone. This thread has already devolved into an inclusionist versus deletion fracas that serves no other purpose than to raise tensions while no articles are improved in the meantime. The longer it stays open, the more animosity grows, the less actual work done to any articles. I therefore trust any and all good faith editors will after this post walk away from this thread and work on something constructive. And anyway, why on earth wouldn't we want greater participation in AfDs by editors who might know about the topic under discussion and therefore be able to help in improving the article? Why wouldn't we want someone to be courteous to such editors? And real quick, no, I am not "back." Okip has defended me in the past from similar dishonesty and it is worth making a one off comment only to stick up for a good faith and constructive editor when he is being hypocritically attacked by those with far worse behavior histories, who are tossing about insults and sarcasm even in this very thread, and who merely are of a different viewpoint. All the more reason why, among other off-site matters, I have not been around the past few weeks and don't plan to be in the future. I suspect this kind of name calling and unconstructive discussing rather than actual editing is what discourages many others from sticking around as well. So, back to enjoying my time away from this absurdity and while I am here, Happy Easter to all good editors! For those who have emailed me, yes, my health has improved, but sorry and despite the many requests that I return, I still want to for all intents and purposes stay retired. Too much to work on and enjoy, really, in the non-Wikipedic world. Take care. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey a nobody: I'm glad that all that editing on wikia reduced the kidney mass down enough to bring you back to the big leagues! I can stop lighting candles now! Praises be to god!Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Blimey, how long did it take you to find that diff of me telling a disruptive anon troll that I was completely uninterested in what they had to say? If that's the worst you can dig up from my 30K edits, I must be pretty much whiter than white. Black Kite 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • See this regarding A Nobody. Aiken 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support DGG's proposal. They should completely stay away from each other. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. If Ikip is canvassing, that needs to stop. If he's in violation of an editing restriction, then that needs to be dealt with as the next order of business. Dlohcierekim 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Admins are editors elected by the community on the basis of their ability to impartially apply policy and guideline, and if it is suggested that either BHG or BK are either not impartial or misrepresenting policy and guideline then these matters should be brought up at a admin recall process (if available), an RfC or ArbCom. Otherwise, it should not be permitted that an editor can have such functionaries disallowed from reviewing their actions without that scrutiny. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Question. Okip and I were on opposite sides of a series of deletion discussions, so I did not use admin tools, or threaten to use admin tools; I collected the evidence and posted a report here, as nominating at MFD a page which appeared to me to be related. I don't see any suggestion that the complaint was frivolous, and a number of editors have supported my concern that Okip's actions amounted to votestacking; some disagree, and it's not for me to weigh the balance, but the number of supports makes it hard to conclude that the complaint was utterly without merit.
    So on what basis is it proposed that I should be restricted? Is it being suggested that no editor should ever make a conduct complaint about an editor with whom they are engaged in a content dispute? Or that an involved admin should not make such a complaint? That seems to me to be a big change in how ANI works, which is why I query whether it's being suggested as a general principle, or as a one-off. And if it's a one-off, why? AFAICR, I have never had a dispute with Okip before, so it's not like this is some festering feud popping up all the time. I want to assume good faith, but I cannot see any basis for DGG's proposal other than to discourage editors from opposing canvasing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis that I don't think it's necessary and could inflame things. I agree and disagree with different parts of what both editors have done during this dispute, and don't believe either to be malintentioned (although I do think Okip is misguided in the direction he's trying to take this.) Orderinchaos 10:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose BHG is doing nothing here but bringing Okip's behavior to light. Any argument that what he's doing is not canvassing is basically wikilawyering. Okip has a long history of treating deletion/inclusion debates as a personal battleground in which he tries to rally as many troops as possible and attack anyone who doesn't agree with him. Witness his (and some of his acolytes') behavior at the WP:NEWT discussions. The issue is canvassing and it needs to be dealt with. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Users should not be sanctioned for calling attention to the misbehaviour of other users. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal[edit]

  • Consensus here seems to be "oppose, it's Okip's fault" or "support, Okip's fault", so new proposal; Okip is banned from "making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with", a stronger version of this. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Except that how, precisely, would his recent actions even be prohibited under such a revised proposal? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It serves as a final warning of "do X or Y, and an uninvolved admin will block you"; feel free to strengthen it. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Jack (below) that the final warning was already made. To answer Jclemens's question, Ikip's notice to people who voted the way he liked in one AFD included a link to other similar AFDs that he would like them to vote the same way on. That's drawing the attention of a preselected group, likely to vote in a particular way, to a group of AFDs that they had not necessarily noticed, which is the behaviour targeted by WP:CANVASS.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
        • "a link to other similar AFDs" appears to me to simply have been a link to the ARS's current worklist. That is stretching the definition of CANVASS well beyond the breaking point. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I/Okip seems to have become as master wiki-lawyer... he is constantly breaking the spirit of the rules while adhering to the letter of the rules. This is a perfect example of why we have IAR, but in reverse. IAR was designed to combat the wikilawyer who hides behind the letter of the rules while common sense says to do something else. I/O has been warned (repeatedly) about his behavior, but finds new ways to push the boundaries. "I'm not canvassing, I'm {fill in the blank.}" While everybody knows that he is in fact canvassing. While I think his goal/objective is noble and tend to agree with his perspective, this gaming of the system has got to stop. IMO, he's past the point of warnings and at the point where a block is appropraite.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That *was* a final warning. We're most of a year on. Jack Merridew 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    In that case, AE it is. Ironholds (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    Problem with that: Ikip was not restricted in that case, he was warned. To quote ArbCom: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations" (emphasis mine). AE would be appropriate if both a restriction had been issued AND that restriction had been broken. The first condition is clearly not met, and the second is disputed. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, the proper course of action (should one want to pursue this further) would be to request an ArbCom case. Personally, I don't care enough right now to invest that kind of time, but in case anyone is considering it, I would point out that this is at least the second time this year that I/Okip has been in trouble for canvassing issues. On January 28, he was blocked for 12 hours for posting a message (inviting people to an "invitation only" project in his userspace) on 83 user talk pages in the span of 17 minutes. Mr.Z-man 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    Per [37][38] Ikip was blocked for canvassing shortly after the arb case closed. Unless that circumstance was somehow different, another block sounds fine. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't say Okip couldn't be blocked for poor behavior; all I objected to is the classification of such a block as AE. Since he wasn't restricted by ArbCom, any such block would be a "normal" block, subject to any other administrator overturning unilateral action, which has recently been clarified as not applicable to an AE block. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    It was about 6 months after the case closed, not "shortly." That block was the one I was describing. Mr.Z-man 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3: the revenge (this time it's personal)[edit]

A block now would be punitive, I propose that the very next time Okip posts in respect of any active deletion discussion on more than one page (outside of the discussion itself) he be blocked. It's pretty clear by now that Okip is so vested in one side of the debate that he is not capable of accurately judging when the line has been crossed. This restriction would allow him to post it at the ARS <smapp>(which, sadly, I always subconsciously pronounce "arse") page; interested parties can watchlist that as with any other Wikiproject. This has the advantage of being unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG, I think you said it best.[39] The reason that you have not been blocked before for telling editors to fuck off repeatedly is because there is no real equality on wikipedia, as long as you have a like minded group of editors supporting you, editors such as yourself can simply get away with anything here.
I can be warned in arbcom for extremely minor comments compared to yourself, and you are still an administrator after telling editors to fuck off repeatedly, you even had the audacity to hypocritically bring up the importance of civility in ChildofMidnight's arbcom. This inequality, this complete bullying disregard for the rules (fueled by