User:ONIH/Sandbox

Main participants overview
Note that all these aren't involved in every ongoing dispute, but can generally be relied upon to turn up at any AfD and vote in a partisan manner.


 * Kittybrewster. A member of the Arbuthnot who has created vast amounts of articles on his own family members, and fails to disclose any conflict of interest when voting in AfDs, even failing to disclose whether he created the article or not. Conflict of interest noticeboard report here.


 * Astrotrain. RfC filed as a result of his disruptive editing, lengthy block log for personal attacks and disruptive editing.


 * Bastun. Has engaged in minor disruptive editing on Irish republicanism related articles.


 * David Lauder. Has made a number of comments about Irish republicanism which show his POV, and often engages in personal attacks.


 * Billreid. Has engaged in POV pushing on Irish republicanism article talk pages.


 * Major Bonkers. Has engaged in POV pushing on Irish republicanism article talk pages.


 * Counter-revolutionary. Has disrupted numerous peripherally related Irish republicanism articles, various personal attacks.


 * Alastair Noble. Clear sockpuppet of someone, only edit 10 edits in total, 8 of those in November in 2006, and the other 2 in Arbuthnot related AfDs six weeks apart.

List of AfD debates

 * Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet
 * Articles for deletion/Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet
 * Articles for deletion/Robert Murray Arbuthnot
 * Articles for deletion/John Alves Arbuthnot
 * Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot
 * Articles for deletion/Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)
 * Articles for deletion/Republic (United Kingdom)
 * Articles for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society
 * Articles for deletion/Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde
 * Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill
 * Articles for deletion/Martin McCaughey

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet
The subject of this article is Kittybrewster.
 * Major Bonkers - Keep I'd be more inclined to agree with the points made by Vintagekits, who displays an admirable interest in the WikiProject Baronetcies, if I didn't suspect that this AfD had more to do with the ongoing dispute about describing deaths caused by IRA activities as 'killings' rather than 'murders' - Makes no comment about the actual article, simply attacks the nominator.
 * David Lauder - Keep Baronets are of course members of the hereditary nobility. The only different was that their Letters Patent excluded a right to sit in the Lords. Thats all. It is obvious that the subject of this article is notable. - no mention of the actual article or content of, simply a comments about baronets. Note that he also voted using an IP in the debate as well, as can be seen in this ANI report.
 * Counter-revolutionary - Strong keep high profile baronet. Apparently a bad faith nom resulting from class hate - again, no mention of why he's notable, and attacks the nominator.
 * Billreid - Keep of course he qualifies as notable — no question - again, no mention of why he's notable.
 * Alastair Noble - Keep Apart from some rather pointless tittle-tattle, it appears, in the main, that the 'deleters' do not give much importance to titles inherited from the past whereas the 'keepers' wish to perpetuate our British history. An encyclopedia is to colate and impart knowledge and if it is with data on the past it should be encouraged and supported as: it is our past which forges our future - again, no mention of why he's notable.
 * Astrotrain - Keep as a notable businessman, a Baronet, and in the Order of precedence of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - finally someone discusses the article, no mention of why he meets WP:BIO though.
 * Bastun - Keep per RHB and Nunh-huh - standard pile-on vote.

Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet
Cousin of Kittybrewster? Certainly some relative.
 * Kittybrewster - Strong Keep Numerous references to him in non-genealogical books - absolutely no mention of the clear conflict of interest, and the article looked like this at the time of the vote so I'm struggling to understand how non-trivial the references are.
 * Astrotrain - Keep per Kitty. Baronets give the holder, and their families, a place in the Order of precedence in both England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - again, what about WP:BIO?
 * Counter-revolutionary - Strong Keep Baronets are generally of inherent interest. If this article were to be expanded it should improve. It should not be deleted - WP:BIO?
 * David Lauder - Keep Too long to mention but none of it based on notability guidelines, but a choice excerpt is WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - guidelines can't just be ignored because they aren't policy.
 * Follows up with Was it necessary for you to respond in such a sneering manner here? and Well, you're not me, and your sneering comment also is uncalled for. I am indeed worried about editors who are deleting pages all over the place. Do you have no respect for the overall project here? and also What a scandalous load of rubbish. So every time the same editors appear on an AfD they are all in collusion or have been canvassing? If that is the case we could probably list dozens of AfDs where the same (but other) editors have appeared. this is a childish and infantile attempt to do nothing other than cause trouble and to cast others in a bad light.


 * Alastair Noble - Keep It appears, in the main, that the 'deleters' do not give much importance to titles inherited from the past whereas the 'keepers' wish to perpetuate our British history. An encyclopedia is to colate and impart knowledge and if it is with data on the past it should be encouraged and supported as: it is our past which forges our future - exact same comment used by the editor six weeks later in the above AfD, and just as irrelevant.
 * Major Bonkers - Keep I wasn't going to comment, but as Vintagekits has referred to me, above, as part of his mythical block of like-minded !voters, I feel released from my self-imposed silence. Would that some others had my self-restraint. Anyway: reason for keeping - article is clearly stated to be a stub, requests help, and needs extra work. No doubt the proposer of this AfD can come back and have a look in 6 months. Biographical articles can be hard to research - in fact, it's amazing how many rely on inadequate citations. Editors on this article need to be cut a little slack - no real comment on the notability, and the stub has been edited once in two months since the article as kept, and that was adding links.

Robert Murray Arbuthnot
Another relative of Kittybrewster.

The block voting get mentioned here by admin MrDarcy.


 * Kittybrewster - Keep and add more references. The red linked law firm has been renamed (blue link) - no mention of the conflict of interest, and little regard to notability guidelines.
 * David Lauder - Keep founder of a major inernational US law firm, whose family are also notable - WP:BIO?
 * Astrotrain - Keep notable individual - WP:BIO????
 * Laura1822 - Keep The article was created to blue a red link in another article; the subject was a founder and still-named partner of a major international law firm; but perhaps most importantly, this article was nominated for deletion five days after it was created. I think perhaps the appropriate template to apply would have been a stub, not an AfD. This smells of bad faith to me - Note that this editor isn't involved in any disputes regarding Irish republican articles, but is a member of the Baronetcies WikiProject.

John Alves Arbuthnot (in progress)
Distant relative of Kittybrewster.


 * Astrotrain - Keep disruptive nomination as part of a campaign against the Arbuthnot family - no mention of why the article should be kept, just attacks the nominator.
 * Kittybrewster - Keep Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank - no mention of creating the article or (possible) conflict of interest, little regard to WP:BIO.
 * Billreid - Keep as per Mgm and BHG. This stub could be developed but the subject has notability as a founder of a merchant bank - little regard to WP:BIO. Also attacks the nominator with It is disgraceful that some editors have, in a bad faith manner, appear to target every stub article that this well respected contributor has created.
 * Bastun - Keep per Mgm, Billreid and BHG - again, typical pile-on vote.

Alexander George Arbuthnot (in progress)
Distant relative of Kittybrewster.


 * David Lauder - Keep notable as an interesting historical figure who should be recorded in an encyclopaedia where the editors are aware, as we now are. This is currently a stub and needs expanding, with further references if possible, not deletion. It is a pity that the team running around flagging up AfDs on anyone they can locate with the surname Arbuthnot did not spend more time engaging in constructive work for Wikipedia, rather than destructive - no mention of how he meets WP:BIO, and attacks the nominator.
 * Kittybrewster - Strong keep Very notable incident during the Seminole War. International repercussions and had permanent effect on General Jackson's reputation - no mention of how he meets WP:BIO.
 * Billreid - Keep The incident provides a fascinating glimpse into the period in American history. The fact that this person is central to the incident makes him notable - WP:BIO yet again?
 * Astrotrain - Strong keep clearly a disruptive bad faith nomination as part of the nominator's campaign against the Arbuthnot family - again, no mention of the actual article and attacks the nominator.
 * Bastun - Keep per BHG and Aspenocean - typical pile-on vote from Bastun as normal.

Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)

 * Kittybrewster - Keep I have added another independant source. I am unaware how he may be related but would like to know - no mention of being the creator of the article, or why he is notable.
 * David Lauder - Keep whilst the stub could do with expanding there can be no doubt that this was an important and notable position in Scotland, retained for some time after the 1707 Union]
 * Astrotrain - Keep notable as the holder of a chief office in the government of the United Kingdom -WP:BIO?
 * Counter-revolutionary - Keep holder of a position which was clearly notable. Lack of historical understanding obviously relevant to the AfD - the usual proof by assertion and attacking the nominator.

Republic (United Kingdom)
Per the article Republic is a British republican organisation, wishing to replace the monarchy with what it calls "an elected head of state" - obviously editors who support the British aristocratic system are likely to be opposed to this organisation, which is apparent by the voting that went on.


 * Counter-revolutionary - Delete non-notable, may have some cursory supporters, but none take an active interest, apparently. It doesn't seem to contribute anything society other than having a website, which any organisation can have. It doesn't hold events
 * Astrotrain - Delete non notable - note the references provided almost directly above this vote, clearly this vote isn't based on guidelines like so many of his others.

Federal Commonwealth Society
According to their website they seem to be advocating a new British empire, therefore some editors may be tempted to vote in a partisan way accordingly. Note the comments from various editors about the complete and total lack of sources proving notability on this article, yet the voting from certain editors is interesting. Also the block voting is again mentioned during this AfD.


 * Counter-revolutionary - Keep It has been nominated for deletion by User:RepublicUK. Why? you might ask, because they disagree with this organisation! A clear breach of Point of View. Notable organisation, nominated out of spite - attacks the nominator, claims they are notable, but absolutely no reason why.
 * Kittybrewster - Keep and expand - no further comment is necessary.
 * Astrotrain - Keep seems to be an important movement within the Commonwealth - notability guidelines?
 * David Lauder - Keep total and utter reliance on the internet, as proposed by Angus McLellan, should never be the last word. Libraries still exist will millions of books and periodicals one cannot find on the internet, which is not the be all and end all. This organisation is contentious enough (at least for those opposed to it) in its objectives to be notable. It has a website. Mr Darcy in his comment refers to a Wiki guideline, the template of which tells us is not set in stone - as earlier, ignore the guidelines if it doesn't suit your argument, and absolutely no reason why this organisation is notable.
 * Also I suspect he voted with an IP with this edit, which also made an edit pushing an anti-Irish republican POV and a vote in another debate David Lauder was involved in. Definitely one of them editing as an IP if not him.

Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde
IRA member. Note that Astrotrain initially tried to speedy delete this even though it had existed for six months. Also don't forget, lots of the editors claim Arbuthnot stubs should be kept and expanded, does the same apply to this article?


 * Astrotrain - Delete Fails WP:BIO- non notable IRA terrorist- no references and no evidence of having done anything - actually using guidelines.
 * Kittybrewster - Delete Not noteable
 * David Lauder - Delete unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed - soapbox?
 * Further soapbox comment of the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for.


 * Major Bonkers - Delete This article seems to be part of an ongoing attempt to memorialise every dead IRA militant on Wikipedia, padded with dubious sources and an undercurrent of anglophobia - soapbox?
 * Counter-revolutionary - Delete as per the above comments.

Diarmuid O'Neill
IRA member. Stub nominated a month after it had been created, when it had three references and needed expanding. Current article is longer and has more references than many of the Arbuthnot‎s, for comparison.


 * Astrotrain - Delete Non notable IRA terrorist. Seems to be written to make a POV attack on the British Police - POV isn't a reason for deletion
 * Counter-revolutionary - Delete seemed to do nothing notable in his lifetime and was not a senior member in the IRA &c. If we allow all terrorists killed to have Wiki. articles why don't we give the an article to all the victims of terrorism? - soapbox? I assume Jean Charles de Menezes who did nothing notable in his lifetime except get killed by the police like O'Neill did isn't notable either?
 * Kittybrewster - Delete per Nom
 * David Lauder - Delete unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed - soapbox? WP:BIO?
 * Major Bonkers - Delete Agree with the comments posted variously above: (1) that Wikipedia is in danger of becoming an IRA memorial site; and, (2) that the subject of this article merits a couple of sentences in an associated article rather than a dedicated page - if IRA members are notable, we should have articles on them.

Martin McCaughey
IRA member


 * Astrotrain - Delete yet another non notable IRA member- Wikipedia is not an IRA memorial site- we have articles on the notable terrorists who committed the worst attrocities, but not for every single member
 * Kittybrewster - Delete Non notable
 * Major Bonkers - Delete More crack IRA memorialising from the IRA Wikiproject. Anyway, shouldn't 'volunteer' be with a lower case 'V'? - WP:BIO?
 * Counter-revolutionary - Delete - perhaps speedily This IRA member is even less notable than some of the others which should have been deleted. What did he do, except join the IRA to make him notable. I shall echo what's been said many times before, wikipedia is not a memorial to the IRA - soapbox?
 * David Lauder - Delete another article glorifying a subversive terrorist in Britain - soapbox? WP:BIO?
 * Further comment Thank you but you misunderstand. Firstly these pages are supposed to be for comment as to why you feel the article should be or not be, deleted. I have given my reason. There are hundreds of thousands of ordinary terrorists world-wide who are not at all notable except that they voluntarily joined organisations dedicated to the murder for political purposes of innocent people, and may or may not have come to a sticky end themselves. I just don't think that Wikipedia should become a propaganda vehicle for terrorists. By all means have some sort of page explaining the organisation's existance but don't glorify the membership - Clear evidence of his POV.

Diarmuid O'Neill

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde

 * 
 * 

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

 * 
 * 
 * 

Alexander George Arbuthnot

 * Advertising of article that's not about a Baronet on the Baronetcies WikiProject.

John Alves Arbuthnot

 * Why put an AfD on your own talk page except to advertise?

Canvassing warnings

 * User talk:Astrotrain/archive5
 * 
 * 
 * User talk:Kittybrewster/Archive 1

There's probably more, but I'm not hunting through talk pages and archives, some of which have been blanked to hide evidence.

Conclusions
The editors concerned will try and canvas and advertise AfDs so other likeminded editors go there and vote, which as I have shown is in a predictable and uniform manner, often with no regard for the actual article or Wikipedia guidelines, merely what the subject of the article is whether it be an Arbuthnot family member or an IRA member. With their partisan block voting quite often AfD results can easily be distorted.