Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/FilePile
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So clearly there's some dispute about this VfD page. Would anyone (Xed?) object to my cleaning it up by organizing the votes into "Votes from newly-created users" and "Votes from longstanding users"? I don't want to bias the eventual admin decision one way or the other, but it would be helpful to see what the results of the distinction are, if that's what the decision is going to be based on. As it stands, if the anomalously large number of votes on this page IS due to an orchestrated campaign external to the Wikipedia, it would be helpful (even necessary) to see what the consensus APART from that campaign is. — Adam Conover † 20:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- The whole process is invalid since the many delete votes from un-eligible voters will convince others to vote for the articles deletion. It would be best if the vfd was abandoned. By the way, some of the users have admitted that its an orchestrated campaign to keep it secret. Xed 23:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- If the process is "invalid" it is for other reasons (see Wikipedia:Deletion reform). Deletion policy already covers sockpuppets and "organized campaigns" (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators). New users are not automatically ineligeble. It is up to the administrator to determine if a vote is made in good faith or if it is the result of a violation of WP policy. Ineligible votes do NOT invalidate the discussion on VfD, they only invalidate their own vote. Also I have don't agree that these votes "convince" anyone to vote a particular way unless the reasoning they present is convincing. And if it is convincing, it has contributed productively to the discussion. Lastly, if these votes are part of a campaign to keep "FilePile" a secret, the agents of this campaign are profoundly stupid, because what you perceive as an orchestrated campaign is clearly having the exact opposite effect. Dystopos 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Profoundly stupid they may be. Mostly harmless too? - Xed 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- If the process is "invalid" it is for other reasons (see Wikipedia:Deletion reform). Deletion policy already covers sockpuppets and "organized campaigns" (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators). New users are not automatically ineligeble. It is up to the administrator to determine if a vote is made in good faith or if it is the result of a violation of WP policy. Ineligible votes do NOT invalidate the discussion on VfD, they only invalidate their own vote. Also I have don't agree that these votes "convince" anyone to vote a particular way unless the reasoning they present is convincing. And if it is convincing, it has contributed productively to the discussion. Lastly, if these votes are part of a campaign to keep "FilePile" a secret, the agents of this campaign are profoundly stupid, because what you perceive as an orchestrated campaign is clearly having the exact opposite effect. Dystopos 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chaos Breakdown
Xed, you have been overreacting. There's a lot of chaos on this VfD page, so I'm going to take this opportunity to break down what's been going on as I see it:
- There has been vandalism to the FilePile article, conducted by users apparently both affiliated and unaffiliated (in the case of User:JohnnyDark) with FilePile. Most recently, Xed has been reverting that vandalism.
- There have been votes cast on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile by newly-created and anonymous users, some of whom appear to be affiliated with FilePile. Xed claims, alternately, that these votes were made by a) the vandals cited above b) a single user -- which he has claimed at various times to be different people -- creating multiple accounts and voting multiple times. There is no substantive reason to believe either. There has been vandalism to FilePile, yes, but it does not follow that all deletion votes on the article were made by vandals. The claim that every new user voting on VfD is a sock puppet of a single user is unverifiable, and Xed's assertions to the contrary are highly dubious. For example, Xed stated on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile: "Further proof of an organised campaign in that User:AndreTorrez has removed any mention of Filepile from one on the linked pages in the article. No one can deny its organised now. In fact the users may all be Andre Torrez." The fact that Andre Torrez does not wish his name to be included in an encyclopedia article does not imply that he has created fifty sockpuppets in an attempt to delete the article.
- They have admitted that it's an organised campaign. It's hardly secret anymore - Xed 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- There have been good faith edits made to FilePile which Xed has disagreed with and reverted while claiming that they were vandalism.
- Hardly. - Xed 09:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Xed apparently received a "Request to change your password" e-mail, which he perceives as an attempt to obtain his password by a malicious user involved in this dispute. Though this may have occurred, there is no way to verify this claim, nor are Xed's accusations justified.
- Yes they are justified, simply because they are true - Xed 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- There appears to have been an orchestrated campaign on the part of FilePile members to vote for deletion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile. A few of these users have also vandalized the VfD page by removing votes. However, there have also been a substantial number of votes by established, long-contributing members of Wikipedia, such as myself, User:Dystopos, and others, so the entire voting process certainly has not been invalidated. Once the massed efforts of FilePile members have been disregarded (a task that Xed has certainly helped with), the question still remains of whether or not FilePile is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. That's the issue here.
Does that cover everything? — Adam Conover † 05:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Let me just emphatically add, regarless of Xed's claims, I am not a member of FilePile. I called for a VfD as I do not feel that this article is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. It is a not notable private file sharing site. There are thousands of these and they all do not deserve their own article on Wikipedia. — Linnwood (talk) ]] 06:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
One point I feel may be of note: Xed seems to be rather knowledgable about the workings of filepile, and may have been a member at one point in the past. MarioDinis 06:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was alluded to that he is a banned former member. — Linnwood 07:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is due to confusion. User:JohnnyDark was clearly a banned member of FilePile, based on the content of an earlier revision of his user page. I believe that Xed has been confused with Johnny_Dark -- as Xed has a previous history on Wikipedia that extends to before Johnny_Dark's first edit, it seems unlikely that they are the same person. Nothing else posted by Xed indicates that he is a member of the site, as far as I know.
- Also, I don't think Xed's status as a member or former member of FilePile is of note to this discussion -- we're trying to work out what should be done with this article, not the motivations of the participants of the dispute. That's not how Wikipedia works. — Adam Conover † 08:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone can use Google. - Xed 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Xed, first of all, it is rude to break up the comments of others by commenting in the middle of them. Please use quotes in the future. Secondly, what accusations do you assert are true? That one of the various users you have accused is guilty of trying to obtain your password? There seems to me to be little evidence of this (not to mention no way to prove it), and I also don't see that it has much to do with the discussion. Even if one of vandals of FilePile tried to obtain your password (which there is, again, no way to prove) that has little bearing on the many other votes made on this page. I acknowledge that it's unnerving to have someone request your password, but could we please keep it out of the discussion from here on? I think it will result in better dialogue for everyone. If you have concerns, take them to an admin. Thanks. — Adam Conover † 20:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you write things like "if the anomalously large number of votes on this page IS due to an orchestrated campaign external to the Wikipedia" and "some of whom appear to be affiliated with FilePile", when you should know because you're a member of filepile? [1] What's the point? - Xed 08:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Xed -- My question exactly. I was under the impression that we were collaboratively working on an encyclopedia, not launching personal attacks on each other. Was I mistaken? — Adam Conover † 16:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Why lie in such a obvious manner? It doesn't make sense. Why hide the fact that you're a member of FilePile. Why is it a "personal attack" for me to reveal that you are? What's so bad about FilePile that you are so desperate to hide the fact - Xed 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Again, I fail to see what this topic has to do with the issue at hand. We are discussing an encyclopedia article here -- Googling other editors is hardly relevant or appropriate. All of my edits to this page, to VfD, and the other talk pages have been in good faith, so I suggest you stop trying to discredit myself and others and start using appropriate Wikiquette. I won't comment on your accusations further, as they are irrelevant to this issue. — Adam Conover † 17:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, your edits aren't really in good faith since you have said the article us "unverifiable" even though you're a member of FilePile. You also said "As it stands, if the anomalously large number of votes on this page IS due to an orchestrated campaign external to the Wikipedia," when you knew very well it was an orchestrated campaign. Again, why lie so obviously? - Xed 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you so convinced that this is an orchestrated campaign by members of the site? If the site has 8000+ members as you report and the campaign were orchestrated, do you not think there would be hundreds or thousands of voters/vandals?--Ceart99 01:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Xed, verifiability has nothing to do with whether Adam Conover can perform original research. Verifiability refers to the citation of credible sources that anyone can check to verify the content of Wikipedia. Read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability before you give up on the good faith of your fellow encyclopedists. Dystopos 04:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you so convinced that this is an orchestrated campaign by members of the site? If the site has 8000+ members as you report and the campaign were orchestrated, do you not think there would be hundreds or thousands of voters/vandals?--Ceart99 01:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, your edits aren't really in good faith since you have said the article us "unverifiable" even though you're a member of FilePile. You also said "As it stands, if the anomalously large number of votes on this page IS due to an orchestrated campaign external to the Wikipedia," when you knew very well it was an orchestrated campaign. Again, why lie so obviously? - Xed 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Again, I fail to see what this topic has to do with the issue at hand. We are discussing an encyclopedia article here -- Googling other editors is hardly relevant or appropriate. All of my edits to this page, to VfD, and the other talk pages have been in good faith, so I suggest you stop trying to discredit myself and others and start using appropriate Wikiquette. I won't comment on your accusations further, as they are irrelevant to this issue. — Adam Conover † 17:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Why lie in such a obvious manner? It doesn't make sense. Why hide the fact that you're a member of FilePile. Why is it a "personal attack" for me to reveal that you are? What's so bad about FilePile that you are so desperate to hide the fact - Xed 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Xed -- My question exactly. I was under the impression that we were collaboratively working on an encyclopedia, not launching personal attacks on each other. Was I mistaken? — Adam Conover † 16:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
OK, Xed, let's get down to it - let's assume for the sake of argument that all the things you've said are true, that Filepile is an active website, and its membership have started an organized effort to remove the entry from Wikipedia. So what? What is it about Filepile that is so noteworthy that it should be kept? --Ryland 07:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Continued vandalism
Various users keep replacing this image - Image:Filepilescreenshot.gif - see the history. They're doing it with the other image on the page too. - Xed 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
