Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Controversy about links

  • Merge into Lost (TV series). According to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites there has been some opposition to even having Lostpedia as a link from Lost (TV series). But if Lostpedia were not even worthy about being mentioned as a link in an article about the subject it relates to, how could that justify making it a separate Wikipedia article of its own? There should be a compromise in which Lostpedia gets mentioned in Lost (TV series), because the Lostpedia wiki would mainly be of interest or use to people who are looking for more information and/or speculation about the series. --Metropolitan90 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing my recommendation to delete in order to avoid a "no consensus keep" result. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The controversy in Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites is, believe it or not, about whether any site not owned by ABC, or run by the series writers is eligible for a link. I kid you not. The controversy about a Lostpedia link in the Lost article is not about merit, but rather ownership status. --Loqi T. 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an inaccurate claim by Loqi, whose only contributions in regards to the Lost articles have been to promote Lostpedia. The "controversy" about a link at the Lost (TV series) article is that the long-standing consensus of that article's editors has held that links listed would be to those official sources (such as ABC.com and Channel 4 sites) and producer-sponsored sites, such as The Fuselage. We follow the established External Links guidelines in order that the article does not become a magnet for fanlinkage. As noted under Links normally to be avoided: "Certain kinds of pages should not be linked from Wikipedia articles...." the top two of which (noted below) are applicable to Lostpedia. Further, as also recommended on WP:EL, "If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate." We already provide that -- the Fuselage.
It's nothing against Lostpedia, which is a growing and popular wiki; but there are numerous excellent Lost fan sites, any one of which can make better claim to being "major". (Hint: The Fuselage has over 50,000 registered on its forums, with 11.5k active, 4815162342.com has nearly 36,500 users -- while Lostpedia has around 7500 registered as editors and fewer than 1200 in their forum.) I would suggest that Lost-TV.com and Lost-Media.com have more of a likelihood of linkage as they both contain content that Wikipedia (and Lostpedia) do not provide: interviews, news, image galleries and reviews. --LeflymanTalk 00:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If Lostpedia required registration to view the wiki the number of registrations would be far more! Lostpedia's traffic dwarfs thefusalge and 4815162342.com's traffic according to Alexa. Chart displaying the ranks of all 3 sites Alexa Rank for Lostpedia: 13,256. Alexa Rank for The Fuselage: 49,623, Alexa Rank for 4815162342.com: 32,412. As you said, No disrespect to either of those sites. Let's just keep the facts straight. --Kevincroy 07:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How could comparing registered users on a wiki and registered users on a forum be even remotely valid as a comparison of their relative popularity? Wikis get a huge amount of use from people who just come and read, I can't imagine a participant of wikipedia arguing otherwise. Also, I'm a bit surprised WP:TV hasn't been cited yet in this discussion. "Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter. Things like forums or blogs should not be linked to." Right now, the Lost page doesn't link to a single fansite - is there any other TV show (or movie, or pop culture item) of similar popularity to Lost that has no links to fansites? Seems unprecedented, and out of touch with Wikipedia policies and prevailing attitudes. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's nice to see someone finally talking about the merits of one site vs. another, for listing in the Lost external links section. These are just the sort of issues that might have been perfect for the Lost article's fansite discussion. Unfortunately, that's not the topic under discussion here. I mentioned the Lost article's spooky ABC-only rule only to illustrate that Lostpedia was being excluded from the Lost article by some criteria other than worthiness (to use Metro's word). If your reading of WP:EL means that ABC's corporate fan sites get a free pass in crowding out competitors at the Lost article, then I suppose we disagree about that. --Loqi T. 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you might take note that WP:EL says, "An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site, if there is one." ABC.com is the official Web site for Lost.
It's not a "competition" about whose sites get listed -- in fact that's precisely why the consensus holds that the criteria for inclusion is "officialness": to prevent favoritism and fansite self-promotion, ala WP:SPAM, which notes, "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. ". To bring it back to this AfD: none of the other Lost fan sites have Wikipedia articles, even though they have substantially more users and recognition. --LeflymanTalk 04:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there are any LOST resources that have more recognition than Lostpedia. --70.231.235.58 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it's a competition, and we are the judges. Wikipedia has value to the world because the best facts are all grouped together in one place, using our collective human judgment about what belongs in the "good stuff" pile. A link to Lostpedia is "good stuff", in my estimation. If official websites can supplant all useful websites, then Wikipedia would have less value. For example, the Microsoft article contains a link to the Microsoft corporate website. It also contains links to websites that criticize Microsoft. If Bill Gates had his way, only links controlled by Microsoft could be listed, and Wikipedia would lose value. --Loqi T. 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's a competition, we as wikipedia do not act as judges for anything. If something is notable enough to be recognised by other reliable sources, then we should recognise it. If not, then we don't. Having an article in wikipedia should not become a trophy to groups/websites/companies/individuals. Having an article in wikipedia should be a natural step from when a group/website/company/individual becomes notable enough to be recognised by reliable sources (books, newspapers...etc). --`/aksha 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no strawmen here. This discussion is about whether an article about Lostpedia is appropriate on Wikipedia. However, one confounding factor has been the bizarre interpretation of WP:EL by some editors of the Lost article. My position is that a separate Lostpedia article is probably excessive, but a link to Lostpedia in the Lost article is a good idea. That's why I'm recommending "merge or else keep." I didn't mean that Bill Gates is skulking around trying to suppress expression on Wikipedia. I meant that if we, we, only permit "official" websites to be listed, we are doing our readers a disservice. It's up to us to determine which sentences, commas, and links belong in our articles. The editors of the Microsoft article seem to be able to keep their external links reasonably balanced and tidy, why not at Lost too? --Loqi T. 08:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Since this is an AfD, isn't WP:WEB the guiding principle here and not WP:EL (especially since the WP:EL discussion keeps coming back to the issue of official sites versus fansites and the number of external fansite links allowed, neither of which is relevant in the discussion of an article and whether it should be deleted)? Whether Lostpedia is suitable for linking from a Lost webpage is a discussion that should be had, but it belongs elsewhere. If wiki policy cites WP:EL as a factor in decisions about deletions, could someone please link to that information? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to Star Wars and Star Trek

  • Keep Sorry, but I don't see why Lostpedia should be deleted and Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, for examples, shouldn't be kept. Besides, the extensive attempts to find problem with Lostpedia seem more like reaching than genuine concerns. Really, these kinds of frivolous complaints do not improve your arguments. CSS incompatible?? Where? What pages? Copyrights of others? Are you kidding? Lostpedia isn't a site about software piracy (Astalavista) or movies (IsoHunt). 3 Advertisements objectionable? CNN.com has just as many. The nytimes.com page has even more. I don't know about the behavior of the sysops there, but there is certainly plenty of verifiable information on the site, and even if there is fan speculation, it is often identified as such, so it's not a problem. Besides, it's not like there isn't published works on Lost(Amazon for example, has at least 3 Unofficial Guides that I could find without looking hard), and it's not a no-name unknown show. So, there are sources for it as well. But seriously, it seems to me that there is some serious personal animus here. That's a concern that tends to make me doubt the fairness of this proposal. Seems to me that this is a conflic that needs to be resolved more than this article needs to be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Star Wars and Star Trek are multi-decade global cross-media phenomenona with very large fan followings . Lost is popular but is not comparable in size and scope or popularity to SW/ST.... likewise then for Lostpedia. If it was up to me, I'd probably delete all the fan site articles (if only because the sound of a million fanboys howling is like a sweet lullaby to me), but that's my attempt at "the consensus explanation". Bwithh 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There are around 20 million people a week who watch Lost in the US alone. How many worldwide? A hundred million? That's enough for me to say that any arguments about fan followings are without weight to me. Or more correctly, they weigh against the person using that argument. In 30-40 years, sure, maybe Lost may be forgotten, but so what? So might Star Trek, Star Wars, and Tolkien. That it's as popular as it is today is enough that Wikipedia should include it, and if it one day becomes as unimportant as a buggy whip, well, it's still history. You can find Lost articles in the papers, and books in the stores. And Lostpedia is even mentioned in some of them. Thus the comparison becomes site on site. As such, I'm afraid I don't see that much of a difference. One's about Trek. The other's about Star Wars. This one is about Lost. It's all fine with me. And that's not even getting into the frivolous nature of the other objections. FrozenPurpleCube 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • it's not like there isn't published works on Lost ... That it's as popular as it is today is enough that Wikipedia should include it — You appear to be (dare I say it) lost, or at least confused about which article is listed in the nomination here. This isn't a deletion discussion for an article on a television series. This is a deletion discussion for an article on a web site. The published works, the articles and the books, have to be about the web site, not about the series. Mere mention in a book is not enough, moreover. Mere inclusion in a book's "list of interesting web sites to visit" appendix isn't enough to hang an encyclopaedia article from. If the only published documentation for a web site is mere mention of it in a book about a television series, then Wikipedia should reflect that, and certainly should not exceed it. WP:WEB specifically mentions non-trivial published works for a reason. Uncle G 10:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, you are confused, as the lines you quoted were responding to the implication that Lostpedia was unsourced and pure fancruft speculation which Matthew Felton brought up. That those sources exist means that they could be using them. So, thus I find his complaint to be unsupported on its face, and thus he would need to confirm it. But since I find that most of his objections were petty and frivolous, I doubt he'll be able to do so. For your appparent objection, you'll have to look elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • No, the confusion is still yours. MatthewFenton was talking about the article under discussion here, not about Lostpedia itself. Read what xe wrote again. Uncle G 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • So, he didn't say either “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft. or Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” – Blatant fail. ? Because I see it right there, and so do other people. If that's not talking about the site, what is? FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Try re-reading the part of what MatthewFenton wrote that you yourself said you were responding to — the part where xe discussed published works — not something else which you were not responding to. Uncle G 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Come again? Are you saying that MatthewFenton wasn't talking about Lostpedia when he wrote what he did? What was he talking about then? He claimed Lostpedia was nothing but fancruft. I pointed out that they can quite easily get information from various sources that go beyond mere fan discussion, so I felt his complaints about the nature of the site were overblown because of that. It seems to me that you're objecting to my pointing that out, and while I'm trying to give you a fair chance, and clarify what I said, I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your objections. FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 23 October 2006
                • I assume he objects to your post starting "There are around 20 million people a week..." on the grounds that it sounds like you are citing the popularity of the show as an argument for the Lostpedia article (especially when it's in response to a comment arguing that it's somehow relevant that Star Trek and Star Wars have been around longer and may be more popular). I guess what you intended was just to point out that there are additional sources available that Lostpedia editors may be using, not that those books are about Lospedia? I don't think the point is that relevant to the discussion, especially since there have been sources cited that demonstrate notability, and since Lostpedia doesn't really need sources beyond the show itself (that's the main source of wikipedia's lost pages as well). "Cruft" simply means that information is obscure and only of interest to fans, not that it's incorrect or unsourced - wikipedia policy doesn't seem to have any objection to linking to sites that contain cruft and it seems like a certain degree of cruft is even acceptable on wikipedia itself (just look at wiki's Lost pages). --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, while he did bring up something from my second reply, Uncle G's initial response to me included a quote of my first post to this thread, ergo, he must have been responding to that as well. Besides, that part which you're talking about was a response to user Starblind's comment about the various fan populations of Star Trek and Star Wars versus those of Lost, which only come up because articles on Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha were kept, despite their great similarity to Lostpedia, which creates an obvious consistency problem. The point in that is related to this discussion, certainly, but distinct from why I made the comment about books in the first place, and I don't think I would have brought it up, had not Starblind made the comment he did. I disagree with his claims about the relative nature of the fan following, and I said why. Anyway, while I don't disagree that many people's uses of cruft are only to minor, if true things, and that that is no reason for Wikipedia not to link to it, a full reading of his statements (both here, and elsewhere) indicate that in this case he believed the whole site was full of nothing but unverifiable speculation. That's why I brought it up, and because these things exist, and could be used by Lostpedia editors, I don't see the problem being quite as extensive as he thinks. It's certainly not a grounds for deletion here. It might be a cause of concern for Lostpedai, but that's their business. FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that Star Wars and Star Trek are old and Lost is new should not be at issue here. After all, we're talking about websites here, not movies and television shows. One of the points raised in support of a Lostpedia article is that their lame news appearances are at least as good as Memory Alpha's and Wookipedia's lame news appearances. If we're to use such citations as the principal metric of notability, we then either need to acknowledge that Lostpedia meets this low standard, or explicitly raise the standard. I'm not one who requires total consistency. Times change. Every situation is unique. Human judgment should be an asset, not a liability, to the healthy functioning of any wiki. Therefore, it's okay with me if there's inconsistency here. But let's try to stick with justification we can support in such a way that it doesn't look like there's personal prejudice at play here. --Loqi T. 18:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DRV discussion

  • Keep – Consensus in DRV determined that “Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability”; this AFD is the formal procedure that follows the overturning of its deletion in the DRV.
NOTE: remaining interpersonal issues among some users voting “strongly” for delete:
The first "Strong Delete" vote above is made by a user with a long-time history against Lostpedia, and was banned from Lostpedia for making bad-faith edits-- his opinion is clearly biased from reasons external to WP. Similar editors have likely been recruited by this editor (and/or have their own pre-existing polarized biases) for voting; note the vote histories and comments on past afds on this article, as well as at the main article Lost (TV series), for a list of these editors; these include Seargeantbolt ("Speedy Delete") and pktm ("Strong delete").
Also quoting from the closing comments of the DRV:
"So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability.(snip)
"Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards." --Out-of-focus 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
*"Overturn. I believe this meets WP:WEB and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis." Angela 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
(End quotes from DRV)
In summary, Keep, in accordance with the consensus of the DRV. --Santaduck 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This is incredibly misstated. Citing what you label the "closing comments of the DRV" makes it sound like those were the official summary by an admin or something, rather than the contribution of just one person voting to keep (and a person with perhaps 30 WP edits ever). Let's be clear: consensus of the DRV was not to Keep, as you claim. There was no consensus. The closing admin made the judgment call that it was worth putting this article back into the AfD process. So let's be real, and honest. -- PKtm 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
To be fair to Santaduck, the final comment was made by a high ranking member of Wikipedia Board of Trustees --Nickb123 3rd 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I really don't think so. That user whom you quoted above, User talk:Out-of-focus, has no user page and only a smattering of entries on his talk page. There's no indication in any of this that he's a WP official of any kind. Let's please provide verifiable statements, even in our advocacy. -- PKtm 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm I was referring to the latter quoted comment, by User:Angela, and in her case there is indication that she's a WP official --Nickb123 3rd 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You are correct about Angela. However, Santaduck's comment above began with the incredibly misleading/incorrect statement, "Consensus in DRV determined that “Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability”;". That quote came from User:Out-of-focus, not Angela; either way, it proves nothing about "consensus". -- PKtm 22:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost tempted not to reply to such hasty postings from one of the editors with the vendetta. However:
  1. PKtm is misleading for saying I quoted Angela on that point. I did not. I suggest he read the text and attribution more carefully. Out-of-focus was cited.
  2. My statement about consensus was a paraphrasing of the opening statement on the page by Xoloz. Again, in the case of any question to my version, refer to the original by Xoloz; just scroll to the top of the page. =)
  3. Third try: Reiterating the opening of this special "second" afd by Xoloz, voting editors should refer to the DRV URL. I would hazard a guess that some have not referred to it. Any remaining ambiguities are easily addressed by the interested editor by reading the original DRV, which I mentioned. This time, I'll even repeat the link-- here's the url: "A new DRV consensus"
--Santaduck05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes but you must notice the first comment right at the top of this page by the administrator who began this discussion, who says speedy deletion was overturned by consensus. This is really a trivial point in the discussion, but just thought I'd clarify in the user's defence that the admin making the decision did address keep as the consensus. However, AFD is of course different --Nickb123 3rd 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD noms

  • Strong keep - i somehow get an overwhelming impression just from reading the upper part of this AfD that some users seem to be simply holding some kind of grudge against it. I don't see Lostpedia as obviously failing either WP:WEB or WP:EL, and i especially don't see how lostpedia fails them any worse than Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha. Talking about which, i don't see how "unverified fancruft" has anything to do with this. Do people even realize what fancruft means? The opening line of WP:CRUFT explains it quite well "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". There's nothing wrong with Fancruft, it's not bad. It's just not fit for an encyclopedia. But fansites by definition exist to serve the 'small population of enthusiastic fans'. So-called "Fancruft" is exactly the kind of external sites are supposed to provide, since it's information that's not appropriate on our own encyclopedia. Arguments like this "Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" is circular. Because even if someone independant added links to lostpedia in wikipedia articles, there is no way to prove who is adding links because they think it's a good idea, and who is adding links because they're affiliated with lostpedia. At the end, it just comes down to the bad faith assumption of "you're adding links to lostpedia, you must be from lospedia and trying to advertise". --`/aksha 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You just "appearing" here confirms to me my suspicions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Fenton, what is that supposed to mean? Please explain your comments. --Jabrwocky7 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me jump in here. The user above, Yaksha, has never edited a Lost article or even a Lost-related talk page aside from here. On the very same day that he voted for a Strong Keep here, he submitted 30+ AfD nominations, all of which, coincidentally, were for articles initiated by MatthewFenton. Clearly retaliatory, not to mention an example of WP:POINT. This is not good behavior on Wikipedia, folks. -- PKtm 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If two users are having a spat, this page isn't really the place for that, is it? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, i've never edited a Lost article because i don't watch lost. But in case you haven't noticed, this entire spat between lost editors on wikipedia and lostpedia is becoming quite widely known. After seeing and responding to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#a clearer policy regarding linking to fansites, i got curious to see what the huge fuss was about. So i read a few of the links people over there provided to old discussions regarding Lostpedia, and frankly speaking i'm surprised such a fuss has lasted this long. As for all the 4400 articles, they're all the same one nomination. "Submitting 30+ AfD nominations" is blowing things way out of proportion. The 39 4400 articles were articles in a series (one for each episode) and were all submitted as one single AfD all for the same reasons. Seriously, attack arguments all you like. But don't waste your time attacking people when you can't even be bothered to do the research. --`/aksha 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, equally, attack arguments all you like, but do not (in what is essentially a personal attack) accuse me of failing to do research. Let's turn, once again, to facts. Your contribution history, here, shows that you edited each and every one of those 39 articles, putting an AfD notice on each one, taking about half an hour for the effort. It's disingenuous for you now to claim that you didn't submit 39 AfDs, because it's tantamount to the same thing. Single AfD or not, you are clearly out to delete all 39 articles, all of which were spawned by the individual who created this Lostpedia AfD here. And I still haven't heard you explain or address just why you would have jumped in to do that, about three and a half hours later on the same day that you voted for a Strong Keep here. Just coincidence? Is it really that surprising that someone might look on your action as retaliation? -- PKtm 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Tagged for the same AfD. What i mean is saying "i've nominated 40 of his articles for AfD" misleading implies i've gone and tracked down 40 different articles of his and put up nominations for each of them. Where as in fact, the 40 articles were apart of a single group. And have all been dumped into one AfD for the same reason. As for why, maybe you should actually read the opening paragraph of the AfD here, which explains exactly why i nominated the whole lot. And i should point out 4400 isn't the only TV series either. here is the nomination for equally short/indescriminate-information-dump pokemon episode articles. This is hardly a matter of "nom because the article is crap and needs deletion". I did provide abundant reasons for the nomination, and by all the merge votes, quite clearly i'm not the only one who thinks those articles are redundant. --`/aksha 04:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Really, PKtm, I wish you would drop the habit of opening your comments with "um." I find that practice to be shrill and belittling. I haven't done the research of vetting participants in this discussion the way you seem to have done, so I'm relying on what you say here. It sounds to me as if you're berating Yaksha for going to all the trouble of notifying readers of each individual article in a series about a consolidated AfD on the whole series. I truly hope I don't have an accurate read on this, but I fear I do. --Loqi T. 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a personal attack, Loqi T, using loaded words like "shrill", belittling", "berating". Clear and simple, including your edit summary ("how petty"). Let's get back to the facts, please. I truly hope I don't have to direct you to WP:NPA, but I fear I do. Um. -- PKtm 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite a broad interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack, there PKtm. I said I wish you'd stop being so insulting, and you accuse me of a personal attack. I'm afraid I do consider this sub-argument to be off topic, and a petty waste of mental bandwidth, and I suggest the three of us get a room. --Loqi T. 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we please just settle down here? Loqi - thank you for trying to defend me, it's appreciated, but it's really okay. To be honest, i didn't even notice the 'um' bit. PKtm made some observations which i gave some explainations for - he probably just didn't notice all the 40 articles tagged with AfD were actually towards one same nomination. So if you two don't mind, i think i'll pass on the "and I suggest the three of us get a room." offer =). --`/aksha 08:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please re-read the article you have linked to, specifially WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks. While the tone of Loqi T's comments may not be 100% civil, he does not actually personally attack you. "There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling." If you feel strongly that this is a personal attack then you should visit WP:DR. --Jabrwocky7 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
users just 'appearing here' is a direct result of the reason i raised this on the WP:VPP, matthew; i wanted to open this debate to unbiased wikipedia editors, who have no bias, either toward or against the inclusion of lostpedia (unlike you or i, as i have previously stated) - because it's without a doubt the fastest way of resolving this issue. it's not because of sockpuppetry, canvassing, or anything related. --Kaini 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppetry

  • Delete per Matthew and PKtm. I also note the prevalence of apparent meatpuppetry of voting by recently created accounts, those who've never edited a Lost-related article, or may have only interest in inclusion of this particular article. --LeflymanTalk 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "of voting by...those who've never edited a Lost-related article" voting in AfDs for articles which an editor hasn't personally been involved in is not a case of meatpupptery. --`/aksha 08:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment try a little WP:AGF there Leflyman... I don't see any SPA's here and only 3-4 >30 day accounts. I also don't see any evidence of a "get out the !vote" effort. Not much evidence of puppetry.--Isotope23 13:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You might consider reviewing the lengthy history of this (e.g., at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites, where you should search on "credible contributor") before you jump to that conclusion, Isotope23. A number of the Lostpedia proponents here participate on WP almost solely for the purpose of advocating a link to Lostpedia. Some have been known to make several dozen edits in a single day on that one issue. Since this debate has been recurring in various forms for months as they try various different approaches to accomplish their stated goal (a direct quote: "this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP"), it's harder to see how SPA some of their accounts actually are. Moreover, since this monomania was pointed out to them, they have made a few token other edits elsewhere, to the effect of being able to deflect this criticism. -- PKtm 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • C'mon, guys, let's try to stay focused on the topic under discussion, and not descend into ad hominem attacks on suspected puppets. If there are indeed meat puppets present, they are unclear on the concept of this forum. In particular, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If huge swaths of the Zombie Hordes can't be taken down with our ATL guns (air-tight logic), then it might be time to begin asking ourselves some tough questions about our own positions. Please, let's try to focus more on what is said, and less on who is saying it. --Loqi T. 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I quite agree, Loqi, and would request that you demonstrate your good faith in making this suggestion by removing or striking through the personal attacks in your comments from yesterday. Thanks, PKtm 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Eh, I've seen enough silliness here from both sides to know I don't particularly want to get involved in pointless blathering about this. I've said my piece above and all I have now are condolences for the unlucky (or incredibly brave) admin who undertakes the closure of this and then is stuck listening to complaints for the next several weeks from whoever doesn't get their way.--Isotope23 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: i've specifically stayed away from editing the LOST article due to this very debate. i added one fact concerning five of the six 'LOST numbers' being drawn in the irish national lottery [1] to the lost article on one occasion, but it was quickly reverted because i cited lostpedia as a reference. i wouldn't like to be lumped in with the 'registered at wiki as a result of the lostpedia controversy' set, and i'd like to make this explicit here. my primary concern, whether here or at lostpedia, is to help make the wiki in question as good as it can be. --Kaini 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • PKtm, those comments were made in the context of an abusive thread that began with this personal attack on Yaksha, launched by you: "... The user above, Yaksha, has never edited a Lost article or even a Lost-related talk page aside from here. On the very same day that he voted for a Strong Keep here, he submitted 30+ AfD nominations, all of which, coincidentally, were for articles initiated by MatthewFenton. Clearly retaliatory, not to mention an example of WP:POINT. ..." It seems to me that that statement is a public assumption of bad faith on someone who you apparently never encountered before. I would also point out that that passage is precisely the sort of ad hominem attack I deplore. Yesterday, you directed me to WP:NPA, and now I'm directing you to the alternatives section of that page, "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." I'm sorry, but I don't agree that harshly pointing out someone's offensive language is always a personal attack. My statement of opinion about your tone was not written as a personal attack, and I'm sorry if you read it that way. In any case I've re-read it today, and I stand by it today. Do please stop criticizing people's edit histories as a substitute for rational discussion. --Loqi T. 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I won't "own" that. Loqi, if you don't see the difference between my citing facts, and your use of personal, inflammatory words like "shrill", belittling", "berating", and "petty", there's probably nothing anyone can do to convince you. I'd point out, however, that WP:NPA includes the remark that Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. And yes, people's edit histories are certainly germane here (you'll note that the facts went undisputed by Yaksha), and I'm not the only one to bring them up, because they matter when assessing good faith. I regret that you consider citing unpleasant facts as somehow being what you label "abusive". In any case, all the rational discussion on this topic, if any, occurred long ago, and we're just retreading the same old ground.-- PKtm 01:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This side spat is already far too long, but I feel I must further dissect your words for you. You said Yaksha's actions somewhere else on Wikipedia were "clearly retaliatory," and a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. Aside from your very thin line of reasoning to arrive at such an inflammatory conclusion, it amounts to ascribing motivation to someone else's actions. My statement was about how your language irritates me; yours was abusive speculation masquerading as fact. Please don't hide behind "facts," when the core of that spat between the two of you was your mischaracterization of the meaning of those facts. And now you're mischaracterizing that mischaracterization for all the world to see. I'm not going to bicker about yesterday's unseemly display any further. --Loqi T. 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (Halloween addendum) Interested readers can find recent continuations on this topic located on PKtm's personal talk page. Please try to refrain from chiming in, unless you have something really, really, really urgent. User_talk:PKtm#An_apology. --Loqi T. 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Returning to the original point, for those who need supporting evidence that meatpuppetry/campaigning has been at work, I direct you to the discussions at Lostpedia: "Wikipedia article" and the forum topic, "What to do about Wikipedia", which suggested, "If you have a Wikipedia account, please login and voice your opinion regarding the link to lostpedia.com from the Lost (TV Series) article"; not surprisingly both of those threads include many of the individuals who have also shown up in this AfD to recommend "keep". A review of the list of Lostpedia administrators also is useful, of which I count at least six appearing here. --LeflymanTalk 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how that is sockpupptery. It's just asking people who are already wikipedia editors to log into their accounts and "voice their opinion". It's no different to when one wikipedia sends an IM or drops by the talk pages of a bunch of other wikipedians asking them to "drop by and voice their opinion" on an AfD. So what if their administrator's show up here? It's not sockpupptery. Sockpupptery is when one person uses many accounts to pretend to be many people, and make it seem like many people are supporting their cause. Actually asking for other people to join in a discussion is not sockpupptery. Especially when those other people openly admit why they're here (as in i see quite a few of them openingly discloseing the fact that they're involved with Lost).
    • You also seem to fail to take into consideration that a lot of lost fans who are from lostpedia may also be in wikipedia to genuinely help our lost articles. Someone who's a fan a lost could well (and legitimately) be apart of both communities. Heck, it seems like Jimbo Whales himself edits over there too just because he's a fan of lost. Just because someone also exists on lostpedia, it doesn't mean they are here to sockpuppet. It also doesn't nessasarily mean they will vote supports without listening to reason. It also doesn't mean they have any malicious intentions. --`/aksha 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Generally when there's blatant "vote stuffing" there's a public call for mass support followed by many keep "votes", usually mostly from IP accounts. If there are six admins from lostpedia here that's hardly a get out the vote campaign. The first link above on Lostpedia is months old. And being an admin on the site in question doesn't disqualify people from giving their opinion (don't forget, it's not a vote), their status just needs to be taken into consideration when consensus is decided. Even if the responses from LP admins was to be completely ignored (which it shouldn't be), there are still quite a few established wiki editors who favor keeping the article. But that's for the closing admin to decide - that should happen any day now, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More puppetry

In Leflyman's comment under my recommendation on the main page, he seems to be insinuating that I am some sort of meat puppet. I've reproduced the entire comment here, because I feel I must address it more fully. --Loqi T. 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't buy Loqi's sudden "influenced my evaluation" contention, as he's been campaigning for inclusion of Lostpedia in any way shape or form for over three months. The entire discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites was an outgrowth of his repeated promotion and forum shopping for a link to the site. Only two days ago, he went back to delete the excessive canvassing for his proposal which he had spammed 20 user pages with. The very first edit he made on August 8 was to push a Lostpedia link. He's even been commended by Lostpedia's owner for his "passion" in promoting the site. He attempts to imply that he's participated in other AfD discussions, when this is actually the only one in which he's ever been involved. (Oh, and incidentally, the place to put such a revised "Keep" comment is at one's original discussion above, not as a seemingly new "closing" recommendation.)--LeflymanTalk 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not been asking for inclusion of Lostpedia "in any way shape or form". I have been asking for a simple Lostpedia link in the Lost article. All these months, I have been explicitly not asking for a Lostpedia page, until a few days ago, when the primary initiator of deletion proceedings changed his mind on the issue.

I was perfectly happy anonymously [2] editing [3] Wikipedia, until the trouble at the Lost article motivated me to create an account. So naturally, my first edit was on the topic. What Leflyman probably didn't notice was that my next significant contribution was to drastically improve [4] the Ruben Cantu article. The link Leflyman provides to my first edit (while logged in) is emblematic of why this trouble has lasted as long as it has. The question in that posting, roughly, why the novel interpretation of WP:EL in the Lost article?, has met with nothing but evasions and abuse in all my attempts to get an answer.

I am not a puppet—meat, sock, or otherwise. All I want is an answer to my "very first" question. To quote another active participant in this AfD, "This is not good behavior on Wikipedia, folks." --Loqi T. 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

this is almost becoming a parody of an AfD discussion! how in the world can a change of vote by a vehemently anti-inclusion of lostpedia user with a history of productive edits be construed as meatpuppetry by someone who has been pro-inclusion throughout the debate, bar by l33t h4x0r1ng? this whole discussion has somewhat descended into bathos. also, how can a compliment on a user's talk page for their passion in enforcing their interpretation of a wiki policy be interpreted as being underhanded in some way? the fact that loqi t hasn't participated in any other AfDs is moot; wiki users should not be accused of underhanded behaviour because they feel passionately about something. this whole branch of the debate is utterly ridiculous imo. i see no meatpuppetry here. --Kaini 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't understand what this new section is about. A read of the worthwhile essay Wikipedia:Beware_of_the_tigers would seem to be appropriate. Please further note that nowhere in anything I've written has there been an accusation of Loqi of being a puppet -- this appears to be his own reading. I have stated, as he has acknowledged, that he has campaigned for inclusion of a Lostpedia link for the last three months. He's not been merely passionate about seeing Lostpedia here, he's been seemingly single-minded in that pursuit, and has been repeatedly asked to tone down the level of rhetoric when responding to others who do not share his interpretation of policy-- In comments on his talk page, he has posted that he wanted a "few knuckleheads to get a clue" which he later replaced with "scurvy scamps... share my view".--LeflymanTalk 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I've reverted the edits to prior comments; it's considered bad form to edit comments after they've been responded to, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, "Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."--LeflymanTalk 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
apologies; the mere mention of meatpuppetry somewhat annoyed me (regardless of who it was mentioned by), and i should have cooled down before posting. happily restored and struck through. --04:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank-you for clarifying what you meant with those words, Leflyman. (I mean that sincerely.) And I will read that essay. Now, If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this conversation in the Lost/Fansite venue's new section. --Loqi T. 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)