Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)


 * Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Who do we contact for wikipedia to know that the person who made this page is asking their friends to come here and vote for keeping this? The wikipedia guy here known as Valoem has been asking his friends to come here and vote to keep this. We can show proof, but others said it might be a violation of wikipedia rules of outing. His friends are Lithorien Sammy1339 and other I have seen. 2602:304:CF8C:9320:F565:2C17:F9D6:F86 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have credible evidence of off-wiki canvassing you can send me an email to my username @ gmail and if I think its believable I can forward it to the arbitration committee who can handle privacy related evidence. I confirm that any personally identifiable information you send me will be handled in accordance with the wikimedia foundation privacy policy.Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To the IP: I categorically deny having such a friend. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice I am identified as something called a "Sea Lion" here. Does that have something to do with this? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor interraction tool shows no connection between the 3 of you. No emails of yet. Perhaps this is just a joe job of some description? Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A few things to note, I have received some off wiki harassment in regards to this article and had been in contact with several administrators as a result of it. If the IP would like to identify themselves and present the evidence publicly we can discuss this further. I have a feeling this is the same person who sent a threatening message to my Facebook account on 21 May 2015. Valoem   talk   contrib  02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * May 21, 2015? You made a claim on my Talk page giving that excuse for avoiding scrutiny with ip edits asking DGG how to email anonymously, on December 28, 2015. More than 6 months after the claimed harassment. During which time you have been involved in at least 2 AfDs and at least one DRV, as well as tirelessly trying to get that Draft into article space. Under your main account User:Valoem. On December 23rd, 2015, you posted on DGG's page asking how to email anonymously(1,2,3). November 28, 2015 you asked DGG(under yet another account, User:Omnipedia) if he would do the DRV of this article. While on December 21st, 2015 you brought the AfD to DRV under your Valoem account. You also posted on Jimbo's Talk page while the DRV was still active, claiming suppression of the article. As if that is a neutral manner to ask something. So I have no doubt that something fishy is going on here. Dave Dial (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The emails were regarding off wiki harassment involving only the harassment and how to deal with editor bias, not other editors. If DGG would like he can post the emails publicly. I have disclosed this publicly. The second email is from my usurped account which I am also open about, and yes I did ask him, again, publicly to open a DRV discussion. I ping the editor Mythic Writerlord here (who is against the topic) in an effort of transparency from that user name Omnipedia. DGG is an expert in librarian studies. Many editors who are here to work together request him for assistance when encountering difficulties. If he felt the topic was notable then perhaps other editors may accept his expertise in hopes of preventing this exact situation. Valoem   talk   contrib  05:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Although Valoem and I disagree on the subject matter, and I question some of his past actions, I have no ill will towards him. This is a serious allegation. Having not seen the evidence, I cannot say much about it. But our past dealings have largely been cordial and professional. I believe he is too deeply involved and too fanatical in his approach, but in the past all his canvassing has been done in a way that was at least transparent. When he informed me of the upcoming AfD under a second account (Omnipedia), he made it clear that it was him, Valoem, behind that account. There was no deceit. I respect Valoem as an editor and hope the allegations prove false. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Canvassing
I have now had an email that confirms that you are not involved in the alleged canvassing but I have received a credible allegation that has canvassed the following users offsite to vote keep in this discussion:- I'm at a loss to know how to proceed. I am clearly involved with regard to Valoem and cannot disclose the evidence of off wiki canvassing to another user without breaching the foundation's privacy policy. I have therefore forwarded the evidence to the arbitration committee (a permitted act under the policy) for advice on how this should be dealt with. At the very least, these late keep votes have the potential of skewing the outcome of this discussion and it would be wrong to close this discussion until the status of those votes have been clarifed. It would be easier all round for the users in question to come clean on how they came to this discussion. I'm not sure that it is fair however to ask Valoem to explain himself publically as he has a right to maintain his off wiki privacy. Perhaps he can email his explanation to the arbitration committee?? Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - first edit since August to this discussion
 * a clearly returning editor who has never previously edited the wikipedia space before today
 * who became active again in mid december after a wiki break going back to Oct 14.


 * Doesn't seem like something I would do ... I've been around along time, have you ever seen me ask inactive or inexperienced editors to participate in an AfD? I know these things hurt the argument not help. Valoem   talk   contrib  04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * O Rly? This isn't the first time you have been accused of canvassing on this subject. I have passed this to the committee and lets see what they do with it... Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Look again the rest of the editors determined that was not canvassing, but looking for qualified support, and DGG's response is particularly compelling. Also look at the editors I asked of opinions, DGG and Jimbo Wales all editors known for qualified responses with whom I've had prior interactions. I know as well as anyone asking editors without expertise in the field or random inactive editors is harmful to the discussion. Does not fit my modus operandi, I would love to see what evidence you have. Feel free to publicly disclose it. Valoem   talk   contrib  07:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * oh look here is an edit where you admit to  that you had purposefully selected people from the keep side. Your actual words were In the interest of WP:IAR I felt requesting comment from the allow side is justified..  That's canvassing Valoem and you know it!  Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please, that's the same discussion I posted above, you know exactly what I mean, if asking DGG or Jimbo for their opinion is canvassing then I am ignoring all rules. And use your administrative judgment sometimes. Read the tone that IP posted, clearly an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Again please post what "evidence" you have if your goal is a distort the discussion then you have done a good job. Valoem   talk   contrib  07:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Spartaz - I can't speak for the other two, but I know that I ended up here from having read DGG's talk page. I was reading through it because of an AfD in which I became interested in this user, and found the section titled "I need some assistance, and no longer know how to approach this subject". The allegations of canvassing and anti-article bias concerned me and so I came to take a look. I would like to clearly state that I have no memory of ever having interacted with Valoem or any of his involved topics before this point. When I read the article, followed the sources, and read the AfD, I felt that I needed to weigh in because of how it looked like there was an undue amount of bias towards deletion for no policy or rationally supported reason based on the evidence presented. That being said, I find your allegation of off-wiki canvassing and bad faith disturbing. Perhaps I should take you to ANI about a violation of WP:AGF? Lithorien (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I have forwarded the evidence sent to me to the arbitration committee for advie. It is quite specific. Unfortunately I cannot share it because of the privacy policy. damned if I know what to do but I know I cant allow a discussion to be tainted without specifically raising the issue referred to me. Perhap you should email the committee directly to discuss this? Spartaz Humbug! 00:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm pissed off. I was accused by an anonymous editor and then my credibility attacked over something that I can't even see the evidence for. ANI seems like the only reasonable place to take this since it's obvious on its face that you're assuming bad faith on my part - God forbid someone take a break from editing - and haven't done due diligence to even look at my editing history. I don't know what arbcom member you contacted so it's rather hard to email them... I'm at a loss of other options. Sorry if this seems overly harsh, but what would you do in my place? Especially since it seems like there's PII involved, and I'm a military member - being doxxed is a rather large issue. Lithorien (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a secondary note, I find it odd that I am getting accused after attempting to edit on the GamerGate page. With the link provided by Sammy above (Sea Lion page), I wonder if it's the work of this group to discredit and threaten editors. Lithorien (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Recuse as an arb -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had already commented when I saw this discussion. As an arb, I'm not going to participate further, but I do not consider it invalidate my vote.  DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I allow any evidence regarding this canvassing allegation to be presented publicly (at least from me). I've never even heard of those editors anyone may check the IPs I edit and present any off Wiki information if you think I've canvassed. I have been engaged in some heated discussions in the past with Spartaz and this is a baseless attack. I will be pursuing further action after this is proven false. It has a bad faith anonymous IP written all over it. Unfortunate you did not ask me first. Valoem   talk   contrib  02:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just received a rather disparaging comment [] with a veiled threat at an ANI proposal. Admins following this page please be aware that threatening behavior is now being posted. (See comment by Nasal Ant Horn.) Lithorien (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no threat, implied or otherwise. Please stop with the hysterics. And I've got nothing to do with this subject or this deletion discussion. I was just responding to the thread on ANI. Nasal Ant Horn (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Renomination?

 * Keep for the 4th and 5th but then delete on the 6th vote, but then restore at DRV, and keep at the 7th. This will save me time by putting all my votes here. The beauty of taking articles to AFD multiple times is that eventually you will get it deleted if you time it right. Once deleted it is invisible to 99.9999% of Wikipedia readers and will never be restored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a general [sarcastic] comment about the nomination rather than something to do with canvassing, so I've created a new section. @RAN feel free to change the heading as you see fit.
 * I will say, however, that regarding "The beauty of taking articles to AFD multiple times is that eventually you will get it deleted if you time it right" is quite nearly the opposite of what has happened. It was indeed kept the first time....back in 2006. The second nomination ended in merge. That one was subject to three separate DRVs: endorsed, "no consensus to allow the recreation of the article", and send through AfD again. That resulted in the third nomination which was closed as delete. That in turn was subject to DRV with the result to renominate for this, the fourth time. Far from a situation in which an article is repeatedly nominated to "eventually get it deleted if you time it right", this is an article that was deleted and repeatedly recreated, and repeatedly sent to DRV in an attempt to "eventually get it kept if you time it right". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)