User:Ikip/block

Reason for bad block
blocked me on 26 April 2009, reason:
 * "I've blocked for AFD canvassing, most recently in Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)."

On Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) I notified three article talk pages of the AfD, with a link to the AFD and a "FYI" only:

...and then openly linked to in the AfD. 
 * 1) Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley,
 * 2) Talk:Christine White,
 * 3) Talk:The 10th Kingdom

Two edits later, another editor, who often supports AMIB, posted two similar notification.

An editor above, who often supports AMIB, posted another similar notification above mine.

Of course, no accusations of canvassing were launched against these two editors.

Rules regarding notifications of AfDs
I did not break any rules in adding these links, notifying other article/wikiproject pages with a neutral message is incredibly common.

Guide_to_deletion states:
 * "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate."

To take an average one day total, there were 114 notices like the notice posted in the April 20, 2009 list of Afd discussions, and 151 on May 4, 2009.

An example from two days of AfDs:
 * Three notifications by the same author:
 * Articles for deletion/Greeks in Poland May 4, 2009
 * Articles for deletion/Greeks in Ireland May 4, 2009
 * Articles for deletion/Greeks in Kyrgyzstan May 4, 2009
 * Articles for deletion/Greeks in Cuba May 4, 2009
 * Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie May 3, 2009
 * Articles for deletion/List of music videos shot in Iceland May 3, 2009
 * Articles for deletion/DJ Talent May 3, 2009
 * Articles_for_deletion/Emi_Gal May 3, 2009
 * Articles_for_deletion/Eanna_Cullen May 3, 2009


 * Five notifications by the same author:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates_(2nd_nomination) May 3, 2009

No rule breaking
A Man In Black states that Ikip:
 * "push[ed] the boundaries of WP:CANVASS",
 * "various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS",
 * "Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING...following only the letter of the rules"
 * "continues to walk the line any way he can"

As Sowhy wrote:
 * Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is.

There is no mention of Ikip breaking the rules of canvassing by A Man In Black.

Reaction to the abusive block
Blocked Ikip for canvassing


 * Traditional supporters of AMIB
 * 1) Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009
 * 2) In this particular instance, he didn't cross the lines laid down by WP:CANVASS, though. You won't get far with the argument that a related article's talk page is a non-neutral location, even though it certainly is in practice. 13:35, 26 April 2009


 * Uninvolved editors
 * 1) I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread...Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton 10:52, 26 April 2009
 * 2) If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009
 * 3) AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs [10] [11] [12]. But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices [13] as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009
 * WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, [14] [15] [16] (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page.
 * 1) There is hardly ANY canvassing here, and cross-posting a note that is just the AFD itself plus the text "FYI" to a tiny handful of talk pages is not canvassing or disruptive to the AFD process, which already has too few people looking at it. rootology 14:48, 26 April 2009


 * Involved editors
 * 1) "You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved." Casliber 10:43, 26 April 2009
 * 2) "Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action." Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009
 * 3) What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO to contact other editors or projects. Can someone be blocked for doing what the nominator should have done as part of the nomination? -- hexaChord2 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it.
 * The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS.
 * AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show....
 * Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly.
 * Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, User:Ikip should be immediately unblocked by any neutral admin who comes across this discussion. --Abd 14:15, 26 April 2009


 * 1) I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Mattnad  14:15, 26 April 2009
 * 2) Improper due to the previous involvement of User:A Man In Black who has been stirring up trouble about this for days now. There was no breach of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden 14:30, 26 April 2009
 * 3)  friendly neutral notices, placed exactly where and how they are supposed to be as per guideline, do not constitute canvassing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 26 April 2009

A Man in Black is a very involved editor
Blocked Ikip for canvassing

Rootlogy wrote:
 * AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them...

In response:
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional justification...

A Man in Black also wrote in regards to me:
 * "How am I involved? ...The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it."


 * "I'm not actually in dispute with Ikip over anything, except that his conduct is inappropriate." [LEFT OF HERE]

This is a complete lie, A Man in Black is very involved:
 * User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon

A Man In Black's history of abusive blocks

 * Review of A Man In Black's block of Jtrainor