Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607

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

The last one is particularly revealing, because the editor

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)

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#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!

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

Again, how did I violate

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)

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)

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: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

talk • contribs

) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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)

• I support the above but would also suggest a restriction on canvassing, since this does appear to be an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How would that be different from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Ikip warned? That's not a flippant question; I too would like to see things improve with this. NW (Talk) 20:33, 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.
  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!
      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).

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?

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
  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 Nobody^{My 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!
  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
  <>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

• 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)