Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery

I the originator of the "List of articles related to quackery" herby amend my vote to change to move to project namespace ASAP. This means the page must and will be blanked immediately and moved immediately. This statement overides the creation of the list and deletion process and the list must move within 72 hours to the project namespace at once so help me God. "I do."

Signed (under penalty of law.): --QuackGuru 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the declaration! However, we'll have to wait and see how the vote completes. Regardless of who created the page, no one has ownership of the article itself. I have a feeling that a move to project space is going to be the final decision, though, so it's a moot point. -- Kesh 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment

I amend the creation of the "List of articles related to quackery" and move to project namespace at once so bless me God. "I do." --QuackGuru 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a general guideline on soliciting votes? It appears that QuackGuru is visiting user's pages to request they bring in others to swing the vote.[1]

I don't know of any guideline for or against this, but it strikes me as a bit... off. -- Kesh 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) See below -- Kesh 21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take on the subject was that he noticed me voting for "keep" rather late in the peace and was pointing out that the "horse has bolted" (to use a figure of speech). Mind you, I notice that there seem to be a lot of the familar sock-puppets out voting against the retention of the list :-) Shot info 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that part didn't bother me. It ws his call for you to ask others to come in and swing the vote that was a bit odd IMO.

As for sock puppets, would you mind tagging them per

WP:SPA? I'd like to see who's abusing the system, as messing with votes is a pet peeve of mine. :) -- Kesh 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A yes, the closing para. I merely took this as him/her pointing out that the "keep" has lost (see recent post on my talk).

Well, it is very curious that the same old names only seem to appear when a vote is needed or to back up editors. Probably not enough evidence to point the finger, but just suspicious. Will need to garnish more evidence by spending some more time (time I don't really have to be honest) before pointing the finger (AGF). Shot info 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone asked, the proposed guideline on soliciting votes is WP:CANVAS. So far as I'm aware, no-one solicited me to come and look at this debate, but I stopped to look at it because I've worked on improving articles on pseudoscience elsewhere. User:QuackGuru's request to some participants to change their votes does seem peculiar, though I don't know how it fits into any policy. EdJohnston 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold that against QG unless there is a specific rule against it. I

WP:AGF and appreciate his enthusiasm to defend the article that he created, I don't blame him. There was a lot of work in that list. --Dematt 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was emailed by

User:Fyslee alerting me to the AfD, I think because I have had previous interest in similar article discussions. That said, I've not voted in favour of the current List article (although some retention of some of the collated information seems sensible). As such this was not in keeping with Fyslee's initial "strong keep" view, although I see they have subsequently changed their assessment. I am glad that Fyslee's informed me of this AfD, and note that this has been a good AfD discussion: it has both generated a wide range of opinions and some well expressed thoughts on how wikipedia might continue to develop its commentry on quackery/pseudoscience topics. David Ruben ^Talk 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I too feel the discussions have been fruitful for many reasons. Therefore, if the list gets blanked, I hope the discussions will be left for our edification in future similar situations. One can always learn from past discussions. --

Fyslee 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

AfDs get archived, so that's no problem. The page will stick around. Thanks everyone for your comments on this. -- Kesh 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to archive (and lock) the talk page from the List itself? The discussions there are equally enlightening. By preserving these histories, we can avoid repeating the same mistakes. --

Fyslee 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I see the concern, because if the AfD went through with a 'Delete' verdict, then the article would disappear, and so (normally) would its Talk page. One place that the Talk could be moved might be into an archive page under Talk:Quackery. I see that this List is referred to from the 'Quackery' page so there's a pre-existing relationship. EdJohnston 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would not only delete the record, it even removes it from one's own personal edit history. I have lost some very good and long edits I've made to such a process. A lot of hard work got deleted, which cannot be found in the record. --

Fyslee 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sound like a good idea. --

Fyslee 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding loss of the edit history, that could be avoided if the old Talk page is *moved* rather than cut-and-pasted. If this list suffers deletion, it should not be too late to ask the closing administrator to restore the Talk page to your user space along with the history. But it's worth making an extra copy just in case. EdJohnston 04:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - My original concern appears to be unfounded. Upon researching, it seems that
  WP:CANVAS is a proposed policy, but not in-place yet. As such, there's nothing against soliciting votes on AfDs. I retract my concerns and apologize to QuackGuru if I caused any offense. -- Kesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism/List_of_articles_related_to_quackery

It seems odd to me that a deleted article can be moved elswhere in WP. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks Steth 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Steth is canvassing for votes. Any thoughts on this please. Does Steth want to swing the results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R._Koot&diff=prev&oldid=98340810

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AED&diff=prev&oldid=98335744

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ilena&diff=prev&oldid=98052951

Thanks QuackGuru 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the Rational Skepticism list is in its proper place, a subpage of a current Project. The list we're discussing is in the main Article space, where it will show up when a user searches for a similar term. That means people might be confused into thinking it's an encyclopedic list of quackery-related articles, rather than a user-defined list as part of a project. - Kesh 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kesh, but why bother voting and discussing if one person can decide to move it? The votes were Keep, Delete or Move. If Delete prevails that, to me, doesn't mean move it anyway? If it is smells like bad POV here, moving it there doesn't suddenly make it smell good. It still fails the smell test. Do I have this right? Thanks Steth 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its your opinion Steth. It passes the smell test. --QuackGuru 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anosmia, Quru? Steth 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term you're looking for is Insomnia. And I don't know where QuackGuru is, but it's nowhere near late where I'm at! -- Kesh 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually ansomia is what I meant. It means when you lose your sense of smell. Steth 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I stand corrected. That said, your comment and Edit summaries are somewhat confrontational. It may be best for everyone, including myself, to

chill a bit. -- Kesh 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If the vote is Delete then, no, don't move it anyway. You might salvage some of the work to integrate with another project, though. As it stands, the page doesn't belong in mainspace at all. The question is whether to delete it, merge it with another project or move it to its own project. I agree that right now the article doesn't smell pretty. However, parts of it could be merged into another project, or it could be recreated as a new project, which would take care of the smell. Otherwise, it should be deleted. That's what the vote is about, really. -- Kesh 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the initial entry :Excellent Idea!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery and the more I read it more I think something is fishy here. It is this quote that concerns me:

"...but by following those editors' tracks, we might be able to find more. Just watch my edit history and you'll be able to figure out what was going on and who deleted the category tag. Then follow their tracks. If you will please activate your email, I'll email you the names to watch. Let me know on my user page. --

Fyslee 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply

]

What's up with that? Doesn't this violate some rules like Assume Good Faith? Quru was concerned about editors notifying others about the AfD Alert! Was this whole thing a set-up from the beginning? Anyone know if this violates WP behavior guidelines?

I am concerned when editors use Wikipedia for their personal agendas and this is why this is smelling fishier and fishier. I also astonished at how Quackguru become so skilled in creating and editing such an extensive list with perfect syntax the day after he signs on as a new user. Would anyone care to share their thoughts about these concerns? Thanks (Also posted here Talk) Steth 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing comments by Steth is not assuming good faith. Steth has not helped in any way in improving the list. Seems odd to me. Has not added anything to the list. The only thing Steth has done is continued to be negetive. I smell it now a troll that is. Please comment on improving the list and stop your strange behavior. --QuackGuru 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this one (also create by QuackGuru) for deletion. Here is the article for deletion vote page...[2] TheDoctorIsIn 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt the AGF finger will be pointed by those who don't AGF, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of editors who have voted for a delete haven't actually edited an article in WP for some time but have contributed to many discussions. Note that I'm not trying to suggest anything or point the finger at anybody or accuse any editor of being nefarious, I just find it odd, that's all. Shot info 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick run through the editors and found one editor with several months gap and one new editor. I don't really care about article vs Talk because that's how many professionals contribute and more common in mature articles. I found the time & volume records pretty solid looking.--I'clast 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]