Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

The reason I have been a bit OTT in challenging !votes

Over the past number of months a number of editors who have !voted on this !vote have been involved in vote canvassing, in what another administrator has called “lock step” voting. Over the past months a number of editors have been accused of !voting on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users such as Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers and also El chulito, Inthegloaming who where later proved as socks and blocked.

All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti Irish republican and pro British unionist/ monarchist.

It started with Astrotrain nominating a number of Volunteers from the Provisional Irish Republican Army and canvassing during those !votes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour [8]

Since then there has been what I consider a systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either like or dislike and voting to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The first AfD that occur was –

James McDade AfD Nominated by Astrotrain. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as Astrotrain – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”.

Then [Montgomery] – this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. However Tyrenius ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder.

Then Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Martin McGartland AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains

Then Diarmuid O’Neill AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – No consensus, This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD, this AfD was nominated by Argyriou on the basis of non notability. Result – Delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted

Again back to an Irish republican and the Martin_McCaughey AfD, this AfD was nominated by Tyrenius on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade such as the Tony Gormley AfD – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to.

The Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain received no delete votes and result was speedy keep'.

The Republic UK AfD, an anti monarchy organisation where they all !voted delete for an article that was kept. Federal_Commonwealth_Society| (here is where admin MrDarcy highlights this potential stalk voting)

This continues on every AfD with !votes on WP:ILIKEIT rather than wiki policy - this abuse of the system is the reason I have been so OTT in this AfD because nothing is being done about it.--Vintagekits 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately going round and challenging keep voters like you've been doing makes you look bad, and probably does not encourage Wikipedians not part of this spat to support you. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had typed out a response that riped you and your reasons for keeping to shreads but I deleted it because I am finished arguing on this on for now.--Vintagekits 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shrug* I voted to keep not because the subject was highly notable but because I personally don't agree much with the 'notability' concept - I prefer verifiability and the presence of editors interested in the article who will keep it vandalism-free. There is also clearly not a consensus to delete.

Additionally, I have a strong issue with articles being deleted out of someone's campaign against a topic they don't like. However, I don't monitor AFD closely, because it annoys me, so I miss no doubt many such. I would have voted to keep most of the articles you mention above.

You should be aware that too-aggressive campaigning tends to turn people off. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you had witnessed this abuse of the AfD process for months on end then your patience might get a little frayed also!--Vintagekits 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been completely out of order throughout this process and have really made a rod for your own back. A sensibly formed nomination (without the blatant acrimony) and with a clearly stated case (and avoiding the continual harassment of dissenting fellow editors) may well have come to a different conclusion. The proper thing to do now is to leave this alone and argue the case against the inherent notability of baronets on the proper forum. Badgerpatrol 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not contested other editors argument on the AfD for a number of days so I am getting a little tired of you continuously harping on about it and secondly, the AfD a discussion not a vote, if editors dont want their !votes queried then they shouldnt !vote. I still havent had one editor submit a reasonable answer as to why a Baronet should gain automatically notable and definately not heard one good reason why a second or subsequent Baronet should be notable just for their inherited title. Their are a number of editors on this AfD that would never enter into a sensible argument about this topic and most of them are either friends of Kittybrewster or fellow members of the Baronet project.--Vintagekits 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the first part of your response but if I get the gist correctly I am certainly not the only editor "harping on" about your behaviour. There is a huge and obvious difference between responding to other editor's comments in a civil and reasonable way, and badgering, harassing, and abusing them. It seems it's not obvious enough for you to see however. To be blunt, any editor is going to get pissed off with comments like you've been bandying about, especially when I frankly don't know you from a bowl of cheese. I am not involved in your previous dispute and nor from what I can see are many of the editors who you've abused here. I say again- if you can't be civil, say nothing. Take a step back for a couple of days and actually wait and see what happens in this AfD. You're not helping your case by sticking around. That's my final word on this tedious subject. Badgerpatrol 04:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DownDaRoad

Note that the user Vintagekits has a banned sockpuppet, User:DownDaRoad, which he used to contact other editors about votes. Astrotrain 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, its was a legit alternate account. All has been explained before, I did not use it did not to canvas in a bad way and sent messeges highlighting a discussion to people of different view points. This is evidenced by the fact that of the people I contacted more of them voted against my view point than voted for it. It was an attempt to stimulte the debate outside of the 3 editors that were the only ones discussing, that is allowed under WP:CANVAS. That was an embrassing attempt by yourself Astrotrain to throw mud in a vain attempt to deflect attention for the months of vote stacking that has gone on on these AfD's.--Vintagekits 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just true. --Counter-revolutionary 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is moving into RfC territory now I think. Badgerpatrol 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage's oposition to me voting on the afd, as expressed on my talk page here, absolutely contradicts his statement that he wanted more people to vote on this or any afd, SqueakBox 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The messeges I left were in January. 2. It was not for a vote. 3. It was to a bipartisan audience. 4. I never left SqueakBox a messege.--Vintagekits 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to this message you left me just after I voted on this afd, and expressing your dislike of the fact that I had voted, describing it as "scoring cheap points", SqueakBox 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in that did I say you shouldnt !vote. If you are going to just make stuff up to try and have a go and me then I suggest you stop editing!--Vintagekits 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, let's keep it calm. There is enough controversy within this AfD without you two tearing chunks out of each other. J Milburn 20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it seems that I am arguing then I apoligies. I dont mean to but if other editors are going to just make stuff up to deflect from the months of AfD abuse then it is hard to stay quite.--Vintagekits 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain, it is not fair to omit the fact that this was several months ago and that no evidence of Vintagekits sockpuppeting has been found in this AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of raising this was that:

Vintagekits always thinks it acceptable to print out a large rant about AFDs I have started or contributed to that are not relevant to this particular discussion;
He appears to do this when he is losing the argument in an attempt to sway other editors to change their vote to his preference and to draw attention away from criticism of his actions here; and
He has made several sockpuppet allegations here against other users that have not been proven. Astrotrain 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been rather too much of that on all sides in this AFD. All of you need to cool the situation down, not inflame it further. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]