Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The God Who Wasn't There: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
defending newbies from accusations of bad faith |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
***None of which has any relevance on whether the article is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. That an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant in determining the article's actual value to the community. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 01:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
***None of which has any relevance on whether the article is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. That an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant in determining the article's actual value to the community. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 01:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
||
****Actually, while Blu and I have both complained about the sockpuppets, neither of us have cited this as grounds for deletion. We both voted to keep. The only non-troll Wikipedian who wants this gone is [[User:Calton]]. I thought it was an unfortunate (but perhaps legit) nomination, but it is just plain not enjoyable to hear Wikipedia accused of censorship. [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
****Actually, while Blu and I have both complained about the sockpuppets, neither of us have cited this as grounds for deletion. We both voted to keep. The only non-troll Wikipedian who wants this gone is [[User:Calton]]. I thought it was an unfortunate (but perhaps legit) nomination, but it is just plain not enjoyable to hear Wikipedia accused of censorship. [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
||
*****Just want to note here that many of the first-timers were considerably more qualified to judge this documentary than Calton, the one who nominated for deletion apparently without so much as visiting the official movie site. These first-timers had actually seen seen the movie, read press about it and attended panel discussions about it. I'm not defending anyone who was rude or accused Wikipedia as a <i>whole</i> of censorship (obviously, there is no secret council here, and Calton has turned out to be a completely solitary voice in support of deleting the article). I'm just saying that a significant number of the first-timers were well meaning, and did nothing to deserve accusations of bad faith. I think many of them were misled, as I was, by the statement that "anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion." Many of these "sock puppets" were people who thought they were doing the right thing by entering a line like, "Keep. I've seen it, and it's an important film." They had no idea they'd be accused of being sock puppets and viewed as meddlers. (Again, I'm <i>not</i> defending the rude folks. I'm talking about the vast majority of first-timers who simply voted and commented.) --[[User:BrianFlemming|BrianFlemming]] 00:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:59, 3 August 2005
There's way too much (apparent) sockpuppetry going on in this VfD. Be that as it may, a cursory scan over the names that I know not to be sockpuppets still provides an overwhelming consensus to keep... with no delete votes other than the nominator, so I'm not kicking up too much of a fuss. But really; indulging in this kind of ballot box stuffing doesn't help your credibility. --khaosworks 02:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope I didn't break some rule, but I just removed some vandalism vote tampering. This has attracted Internet trolls, apparently. And can I just add I'm sort of irritated with all the sockpuppets, and how they buried the nomination which is supposed to be at the top of the page, and how they're accusing us of censorship? Reading over this, it's like they think eight guys in a room make the decision, and this is the protest area. CanadianCaesar 06:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I noted all of the anonymous votes, and put them in a subheader below the main votes. I also noted the users with less than ten edits who crawled out of the woodwork. And then there's the editors who have less than fifty edits, but also haven't placed an edit since January or earlier. Sets my sockpuppet senses a tingling, I tell ya... In related news, most of the apparent sockpuppets who voted here have also placed a vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley. Still, this article is likely going to get all but unanimyous keep votes, with or without socks. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- None of which has any relevance on whether the article is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. That an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant in determining the article's actual value to the community. FeloniousMonk 01:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, while Blu and I have both complained about the sockpuppets, neither of us have cited this as grounds for deletion. We both voted to keep. The only non-troll Wikipedian who wants this gone is User:Calton. I thought it was an unfortunate (but perhaps legit) nomination, but it is just plain not enjoyable to hear Wikipedia accused of censorship. CanadianCaesar 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Just want to note here that many of the first-timers were considerably more qualified to judge this documentary than Calton, the one who nominated for deletion apparently without so much as visiting the official movie site. These first-timers had actually seen seen the movie, read press about it and attended panel discussions about it. I'm not defending anyone who was rude or accused Wikipedia as a whole of censorship (obviously, there is no secret council here, and Calton has turned out to be a completely solitary voice in support of deleting the article). I'm just saying that a significant number of the first-timers were well meaning, and did nothing to deserve accusations of bad faith. I think many of them were misled, as I was, by the statement that "anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion." Many of these "sock puppets" were people who thought they were doing the right thing by entering a line like, "Keep. I've seen it, and it's an important film." They had no idea they'd be accused of being sock puppets and viewed as meddlers. (Again, I'm not defending the rude folks. I'm talking about the vast majority of first-timers who simply voted and commented.) --BrianFlemming 00:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, while Blu and I have both complained about the sockpuppets, neither of us have cited this as grounds for deletion. We both voted to keep. The only non-troll Wikipedian who wants this gone is User:Calton. I thought it was an unfortunate (but perhaps legit) nomination, but it is just plain not enjoyable to hear Wikipedia accused of censorship. CanadianCaesar 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- None of which has any relevance on whether the article is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. That an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant in determining the article's actual value to the community. FeloniousMonk 01:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I noted all of the anonymous votes, and put them in a subheader below the main votes. I also noted the users with less than ten edits who crawled out of the woodwork. And then there's the editors who have less than fifty edits, but also haven't placed an edit since January or earlier. Sets my sockpuppet senses a tingling, I tell ya... In related news, most of the apparent sockpuppets who voted here have also placed a vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley. Still, this article is likely going to get all but unanimyous keep votes, with or without socks. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)