Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Miriam Sakewitz#Possible canvassing problem

==Possible canvassing problem==

  • Comment - For all of you who came here from [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26637 The Wikipedia Review,] if you hate Wikipedia so much, why keep coming back? Also, canvassing applies to off-wiki activities, and canvassing includes posting in partisan forums. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:*Have you disclosed that you are the creator of this article? It may help explain your behavior in this deletion debate. Law type! snype? 09:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::*No, I woulod assume everybody here would know that from the link to the history of the article at the top of the page, very convient for everyone to find, say versus a forum that claims to be hidden from search engines. Generally its a good idea to research the article which would include its history, along with reading the article before discussing whether it should be deleted, as mentioned at this essay. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:*I keep coming back to fight for an improvement with the BLP problem, to advocate for the living subjects of Wikipedia's "biographies," and to rid the project of inappropriate articles named or framed as "biographies." Lara 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Thanks to Aboutmovies for coming up with the link above. I agree there is a potential canvassing problem here. It seems (emphasis on that) that several editors (including the nom) could have been recruited on an external forum which appears to be cleary biased with regard to WP. Editors involved seem to be (judging on usernames/signatures on both WP and forum, and on forum posts):

::*User:RMHED

::*User:Alison (nom)

::*User:Law

::*User:Jennavecia

::*User:SirFozzie

I am concerned about the fact that this was an external forum and that it was not disclosed at all -I for example tagged the article for rescue, but this was obviosuly public and well within WP. Don't know what is the course of action in this case, can any non-involved admin jump in and give advice? --Cyclopia (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, examples of comments being made on the forum thread:

  • Because people who obsessively make thousands of edits to an imaginary encyclopedia think that other people with problems not so different then their own exist for their amusement. (GlassBeadGame)
  • This AFD is a clusterfuck. (LaraLove, possibly User:Jennavecia)
  • (Quoting a comment of mine on the AfD) *facepalm a go-go* (SirFozzie, possibly User:SirFozzie)

So much for civility and good faith. Even if not technically on WP, these are (mostly) WP editors talking of a WP AfD they're mostly participating to or even nominating, on a WP-dedicated forum. Proactively hiding their discussion, by the way, as the thread reports Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines (I guess they will say it's for LP protection -could be, fine, but still discussing on a private forum without giving notice is questionable). I don't think such behaviour is entirely acceptable. This should be reported. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This AFD is a clusterfuck. I don't see how me saying that on another site is an issue, but I'll say it here too just to be consistent.

    I found out about this article when it was up as an inappropriate DYK. I missed being the one to yank it by about 15 seconds. I added it to my watchlist after that.

    That said, I'm highly critical of WP, I think the way BLPs are handled on this website is shameful, and the only reason I even edit is to fight for change in this area. This is on my userpage and anyone that pays attention to the wikipolitics around BLP knows where I stand. WR stays up to date on most things BLP and this AFD and the connection to WR is nothing new. It's apparently just the first time you've noticed it. But go ahead and report it... just not sure who you're going to report it to, as about half the Arbs are active on WR. Lara 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:*I'm absolutely fine with the existence of WR (hey, I could even join, even if I have vastly different views from yours on BLP and related things). What I am not fine with, is that several editors/admins cluster on a biased forum talking about an AfD without giving disclosure. This falls three times under WP:CANVASSING as (1)biased message on (2)partisan audience, and -most concerning in my opinion- do it (3)stealthily. This is even more concerning since admins are involved. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::*And what I'm saying is it's widespread knowledge that we post to WR, this specific case is no different than dozens of others, and I don't know where you're going to "report" it. I mean, many people probably already knew or assumed it. And it is a public forum, where anyone can notice it. It could have just as easily been a discussion located here on a talk page somewhere and no one noticed it until now. But whatever. I'm also saying it doesn't matter, in case that part wasn't clear, but that's probably just a side-affect of me not caring. I think CANVASS is, for the most part, silly because a discussion is about weight of arguments, not numbers. Lara 12:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*You cannot just assume that "it's widespread knowledge". WP is not your circle of friends. I am on WP since several years, and I never stumbled across WR before. I cannot know all the personal habits of other editors, nor I am normally interested in. And yes, it is a public forum, but it is not-googleable (at least that subforum) and you have to know of its existence to do that. If it was a "talk page somewhere" unrelated to the discussion, it would have been almost the same: uncivility, canvassing etc. would have applied the same. The fact it is an external site that not everyone knows make it considerably more serious in my view, but that's not the problem. As for CANVASS, it is not silly because discusson is about both weight of arguments and consensus, and canvassing biases consensus. And it is, above all, dishonest behaviour versus other editors. Since you seem to be so ethically driven when it comes to BLPs (and I can admire that, even if I disagree about it), you should recognize it quite easily. Would you have put a small tag saying "This AfD is being debated here" with a link to the forum thread, it would have been much different (even if not completely fine anyway). --Cyclopia (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::*If you've been on WP for years and have never heard of WR before, you haven't been paying attention. WP:BADSITES. How did you miss that? I stand by my previous statement. Lara 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::*I missed that because I'm only recently becoming involved with WP policies and deletion debates, due to my personal perception of several problems with BLP and notability guidelines (I have to write my thoughts on that, so to fully disclose my POV). The page by the way makes no mention of WR, so I don't understand the link. Anyway, the point is that WP is not, nor it should be, a circle of friends. It should be an open process. Even if I just joined WP yesterday, I should be able to have full disclosure of what's going on in the debate. That's not what happened here, at all. You can go round in circles and say that "it is common knowledge" again and again: sorry for you, but your personal forum frequentations are not common knowledge. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::*I didn't say common knowledge. I said widespread knowledge, which it is. I know this for a fact because it's come up many times. Haha. I could go get various RFXs and ANI discussions, talk page threads, whatever else, but I've got class now so I don't have the time... or the inclination. Just because you missed it doesn't mean it's not widely known. Lara 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::*If it's not common, it's irrelevant. Even total newbies or even external observers should have disclosure to the whole process. For the n-th time: WP is not a circle of friends or a forum. It is an open process to build an encyclopedia. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::*Still doesn't matter. Lara 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*O Rly? You've been on WP several years and never heard of WP:BADSITES or Wikipedia Review? Not even when you were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Watch_%28second_nom%29&diff=prev&oldid=48833506 voting to keep] Wikipedia Watch and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=64914745 voting strong keep] for Encyclopedia Dramatica? – iridescent 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::*Are these cited in the discussions abovelinked? It is entirely possible I forgot (my memory faults sometimes). I swear I didn't remember anything about WP:BADSITES or Wikipedia Review, and I have no reason to lie on the subject. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::: I'm a non-admin and I'll jump in with some advice. How about the morally bankrupt social outcasts who lack anything approaching an ounce of human decency stfu and stop abusing the handicapped? Oh.. delete. Rabbits.. ffs. What are you people? Morons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.169.229 (talk • contribs)

::::(I was thinking of removing the above, but it shows pretty well the civility of people involved there). --Cyclopia (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::Troll. Comes with the territory. Lara 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::Involved where? Law type! snype? 22:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::In the discussion, I wasn't implying anything else. I was just a bit amused at looking how paladins of ethics often abandon themselves to anonymous insulting. However, Lara/Jennavecia asked the troll to stop on WR, by the way. And it stopped after her post, happily. A lucky coincidence, I'd say. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::: Lots of lucky co-incidences around; I mean, you replying to a comment for Joshua for one. Maybe you don't really exist, your posts the product of a rootkit or something.... Minkythecat (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Now I cannot comment on comments meant for other people? So much of AGF. Anyway, I googled a bit about this JoshuaZ, and, well, he's a Yale guy, while I studied in Italy and now live in UK. And just for the record I don't look as geeky as him, at least if his photo on Wikipedia Watch is real; I have a trimmed beard and no glasses! :) --Cyclopia (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: actually: I agree with User talk:Aboutmovies, that, at least as a common courtesy, we should have informed him that the article was discussed at that site. But then, again, perhaps he should have disclosed to ms. S. that he was writing an article about her, on one of the most watched web-sites there is? Pot, kettle, black..and all that. Regards, Just a little kitten mewing for change

:If there is a way to contact Ms.Sakewitz, no problem in telling her that this article exists. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)