Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dawn of the Dead in popular culture

Otto, I am increasingly noticing tag teaming between you and two or three others in these "in popular culture" discussions. It seems the same couple of editors are nominating these kinds of articles for deletion and the same two or three other editors are replying almost immediately with "delete" posts that often repeat what the nominator said. I strongly believe that we should not jump to the sockpuppetry conclusion, but I am wondering if there is some kind of intentional effort here by maybe four editors to go after these kinds of articles? Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * False accusations are ugly. I could just as easily accuse you and DGG of colluding because you're on the same side of all of these. Otto4711 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely do not like false accusations and I do see a lot of those fly around on this site, which is of course discouraging, but I am suspicious when I see one user post "yet another directory of loosely associated items" followed immediately by another saying "not a directory of loosely associated terms", the first user post "triviality of the reference" and the second post "Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide." Whether there is anything to it or not, it just seems as if the same few editors are nominating every "in popular culture" article they see for deletion and the same editors are almost copy and pasting similar arguments in these discussions and aggresively going after those who disagree with them in whatever manner possible.  Perhaps a separate discussion should be set up somewhere where we all can actually just discuss these types of articles, because it seems that the community simply does not have consensus on "in popular culture" articles.  I also fear that those nominating these articles may be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, i.e. just nominating these articles out of personal opinions about the whole "in popular culture" matter, rather than the articles' individual merits.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You should take any sockpuppetry suspicions to WP:CHECKUSER, not make accusations that are not supported by facts.  Corpx 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that it is sockpuppetry, but some other kind of concerted effort. One thing I notice about RobJ1981 is that he has suddenly taken up the campaign against "in popular culture" articles since Eyrian left and yes, yet again, Corpx and Otto are in some cases the first two to "vote" delete in these articles. I again think that there may be some kind of off-Wikipedia collusion going on among these four editors and that they are aggressively attempting to silence anyone who disagrees with them in this regard. I am to be honest rather outraged at RobJ1981 for ignoring my responses to his various comments on my talk page, ignoring the fact that I have a mentor, and ignoring my effort to go about uploading images differently. I spent a good amount of time yesterday and today going through articles looking for anonymous editors to welcome and for articles whose first lines could be improved as well. I am not a quitter, but to have Eyrian leave only for someone with some incredibly similar AfD creation habits suddenly jump on me as well is incredibly discouraging. This is the second anti-"in popular culture" article crusader to try "reporting" me when I am in the middle of working with my mentor to improve my ability in AfDs and when the last AfD I even participated in prior to this one was over 50 edits ago anyway! And to say something about image uploading when I only uploaded two new images of a different quality and type AND posted a message on the admin who deleted my other images' talk page asking if the new images were okay, is mind-boggling! I cannot tell you how upset I am after putting in a lot of time lately trying my best to improve Wikipedia and especially to avoid controversy by focusing on welcoming editors with the neutral regular welcome template, to have someone jump on me without adequately trying to discuss things with me.  I find it really bogus for someone to post a comment, for me to reply, for me to not have participated in any AfDs for at least two hours before he posted the initial comment, and then to take me to ANI AFTER I replied and even with me having not participated in any AfDs for at least two hours prior to his "comment" on my talk page that I replied to and on top of the last AfD post of mine being fifty or so edits ago and being one of only a couple out of my last couple hundred of edits. Perhaps Rob was also upset that we disagreed here?  Anyway, I saw that Otto4711 had just started a discussion on Dawn of the Dead in Popular Culture. Did it take long until Rob and Corpx voted to delete this one? I do still seem to notice that now that Eyrian has stopped nominating the "in popular culture" articles for deletion Rob and Otto have suddenly taken up that cause! And yet, you do not see me taking them there for violating POINT or something. I suppose I am in part just miffed, because I have been working hard to show Chaser and Durova that I can contribute constructively to Wikipedia and I have the Eyrians and Robs out there hovering around trying to trip me up. And with the whole image thing, I uploaded TWO new images after Chaser and Golbez's comments with the intention of seeing if these different kinds of photographs would be better. Only two new images while awaiting feedback. What more does Rob want?  Anyway, the tag teaming of Otto, Rob, and/or Corpx seems to continue.  See also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this for more suspicions of some kind of cooperative effort by Rob and Otto.  I do NOT suspect sockpuppetry, and who knows, maybe it is coincidental; I would like to assume good faith as much as possible, but as I suspect, when one of them nominates an article for deletion, the other(s) appear(s) immediately to "vote" delete almost repeating the same argument as the nominator. Notice also these copy and paste edits:, , , , and .   More copy and pastes can be seen here and here.  In any event, most of these discussions are the same handful of editors going back and forth and it seems like more of these divisive discussions are ongoing.  I just think there is a larger problem with these "in popular culture" nominations this month and hope that we can all return to focusing on improving articles and expanding this site.  The amount of effort that has gone into these discussions suggest that we all have plenty of time to work to build articles and make them better.  I would like to see us all be able to work together to better this project and not be rivals or "enemies," for as Abraham Lincoln said, "Am I not destroying my enemies by making friends of them?"  So, have a wonderful weekend!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but what exactly does your image upload issues & welcome message issues with other editors have to do with this AFD?   I think you're reaching way too much to think that people who vote to delete these IPC articles have planned it maliciously through concerted effort.  Do you also think the Keep voters for IPCs work this way?  Corpx 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Corpx, it is something totally unrelated that individuals posting and nominating these kinds of articles tried to make an issue of to attack me for disagreeing with them about these articles. I am mentioning the above here, rather than elsewhere, because I am no "snitch" who is out to get people; I actually have some hopes that we can all constructively work out our differencs and get back to improving and developing articles rather than destroying people's work that is obviously relevant to some segment of the community. Also, whether you or anyone else planned participating in these maliciously per see may not be and I hope is not the case, but these kinds of nominations by the same individuals seem to maybe violate POINT and they are rather disruptive in that they start these discussions that attract the same people (both those who want to keep and those who want to delete) and are distracting us from focusing on spending more time improving articles and fighting obvious vandalism (the latter of which, I think you have a lot of good potential at doing). There are plenty of articles that I could probably care less about on the site, but because I know a good deal of others find value in them and spend time editing them, I would not want to spend an abundance of my time being exclusive of their efforts and interests. Maybe if we have a friendly and civil conversation here, we'll be able to move away from all these repitive in popular culture discussions and do all kinds of good for this site, which I personally believe was a great idea and can continue to be one. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will dignify this horseshit with exactly one response. I am not involved in any cooperative effort regarding this article or any other article or series of articles. If you want to have me investigated, feel free to report your suspicions to whatever Wiki-authority you want. Otherwise keep your false accusations out of AFD and to yourself. Otto4711 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Otto4711, I really wish others would not jump to conclusions and misrepresent things. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

comment I certainly do not consider that there is any evidence of collusion, and I am extremely disappointed to hear such irresponsible remarks. I think it quite clear that there are 3 or 4 people with similar strong views about these articles not being encyclopedic, though as is obvious I deplore that they are trying to remake Wikipedia after what I consider their own limited conception of it. Given that they have been making the same repetitive arguments for all articles, of course they will be similar. The defenses are after all similar too: supporters have all been trying to show why the reasons are not correct. We have enough problems in dealing with these articles themselves. I'm obviously not the one to do it, but I would strongly suggest refactoring to delete this exchange. Otto is entirely correct that such accusations are unworthy of a serious discussion. DGG (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think DGG tends to be fair and make relatively reasonable observations. Therefore, should RobJ1981 retract the bogus remarks he had made about me elsewhere, I would be happy to assume good faith and reconsider my suspicions outlined above.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AFD is really not the place for you to voice your "suspicions", in regard to comments made by another editor elsewhere Corpx 04:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My intentions here was actually to give you and the others a less inflammatory environment to discuss my concerns as they pertained to these kinds of articles under discussion. I do not feel comfortable "trying to get people in trouble" by taking them to ANI or checkusers and I think some people take editors there under emotional motivations or unfairly at times.  Here, I figured we have disagreements about the whole "in popular culture" thing and so in a discussion about it, maybe we can get everything off our chests, move on after having said our pieces, and start looking for actual compromises in order to edit more constructively, and I think that maybe there are areas in which we can do that.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much room for compromise here, partly as a result of the diametrically opposed positions people are taking in these AFDs.--Chaser - T 05:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I realize that, I meant that maybe if some of us who are most opposed on this issue tried working constructively on some other aspect of the project, we would be more respectful of each other and more civil here? I proposed for example on Corpx's talk page that maybe he could give me some guidance about dealing with vandalism, something I worked on tonight.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that there is no evidence of collusion here. That doesn't mean it's not happening, of course, but assume good faith, one of our key policies, demand that we believe fellow editors when there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Among the many ways people find out about AFDs is to follow each other's contribution logs, word-search AFD for things they are interested in participating in, etc. There are clearly two groups in these "in popular culture/in media" AFD discussions that regularly participate and take opposite positions. Cooperation in a shared endeavor does not indicate some kind of off-wiki, backroom collusion, and accusations of such without evidence (as seen here) often poison the well far more than they could ever resolve the issue if there were actual collusion taking place.--Chaser - T 05:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As you know, I just feel extreme frustration that when I see editors making redundant arguments and the like and it is ignored but one or two editors decide they want to "get me in trouble" when they disagree with my interpretation of policies here and then misrepresent my edit history to be totally unbalanced and I really needed to get these things out once and for all. I cannot just sit back and let one or two people who disagree with my stance pull some of these stunts.  With that said, I think you are on to something about how it may be for both sides people with strong opinions looking for these discussions and not an actual coordinated effort and so I will agree to "assume good faith" in that regard.  I just hope that others will extend the same courtesy as well.  Finally, as I have these past two months, I will respect and follow the guidance given by Chaser.  I have kept my AfD participation for the day to this discussion alone and have focused most of my edits on welcomes and general article improvements.  I tried some vandal fighting tonight as well and actually posted a message on Corpx's page for some ideas there.  Maybe cooperation on other aspects of this site will make debates like those here more cordial.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Roi, unless I'm mistaken it was only Eyrian and Rob who dragged you to ANI and Eyrian's gone. Aside from the fact that frustration at Rob is a poor excuse to allege collusion, Corpx and Otto had nothing to do with your trips to ANI. They owe you nothing. Frankly, holding a grudge against Rob is a bad reason, too. Life is short. Move on.--Chaser - T 05:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm having a much more pleasant discussion with Corpx now and you are right about Eyrian being gone and so no longer being a concern.  I'll just ignore anything nonsenical from Rob in the future.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)