Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Keith Wigdor


 * "notable"?...what an interesting term semantically in this regard...and so many stopping by to say "seems non-notable" while extending an admission of no familiarity with the corpus of this artist's work...perhaps such controversy is "notable" in and of itself...well I have found the artist's critical explorations of nascent mental manifestations examined in a dialectical Hegelian critical light to be both interesting,unique,and yes-"notable".gmonkai 18:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Do you wish to cast any vote to keep or delete? -- Infrogmation 19:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP,as cast above gmonkai.
 * Ok; explicitly stated votes are much easier to count than implied ones. :-) -- Infrogmation
 * Curious logic. The fewer people that are familar with someone's work, the harder it should be to argue they are not notable, by this line of argument?  Alai 20:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I read from the article subject's site is that the purpose of his work is to, "invade your mind and destroy logic". Oh, I am sorry, I should not have made this post on the VfD page since the article is going to get vaporized!24.168.67.238 20:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * regarding "curious logic":Much inference there,as it trajects logic about numbers of people familar with Keith Wigdor's work-which was not broached...the point was more appertinent to controversy which the works of this artist seem to attract;even by those entirely unknowledgeable regarding them;and in itself that is certainly notable...in my experience cronyism is usually not stirred against a movement unless it has perturbed people(who are perhaps threatened by it)...and in itself this is certainly notable.gmonkai.


 * How do we know that people who are trying to VOTE to either Delete or Keep are not being blocked and cannot get in? We need to know if this process is immune to corruption! Are people's VOTES being registered? Have here been people who were trying to VOTE but cannot get in?24.168.67.238 20:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, what the heck are you talking about? The page history is visible to anyone who cares to check it. Do you have any reason to suggest some problem with any logged in user being unable to vote? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 20:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely...I am here in Austin,TX...I know for a fact that in the last twenty minutes,a Swede and new member has attempted to vote KEEP three times,and has found it impossible to keep his edit...user name Placeboism...gmonkai.
 * Keep in mind that new users' votes don't really count for much. This might seem unfair, but you have to consider the problem of sock puppets. Android79 21:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no edits for a User:Placeboism. I believe if an ip# someone is using is effected by a block (which should only occur if someone from that ip# was blocked for vandalism or similar offenses; see Blocking policy ) they should get a block message. I'm a sysop here, and I'm unaware of any mechanism existing that would block anyone from voting or editing any unprotected article unless they are completely blocked. The list of blocked IP addresses and usernames can be seen at Special:Ipblocklist. Any glitch should be seen at more places than just this VFD subpage. Is there any indication that users are having a problem logging in at present? -- Infrogmation 21:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * OH MY GOD! This VfD is corrupt! Gmonkia, are you telling us that there has been someone who has been trying to VOTE and cannot get in!!! This VfD is NOT WORKING!!! It is corrupt! If there is a, "Placeboism" and if this party is being blocked from Voting then this VfD is corrupted!!!! After all, they allowed an imposter to case a vote! This is not fair!24.168.67.238 21:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Android79, if a new user is not a, "sock puppet" then they have the same rights as anyone, correct?24.168.67.238 21:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * People have the right to Vote! If a NEW USER comes in here to VOTE and they are not a, "sock puppet" then they can VOTE! OH MY GOD!!!!! Are we being told that VOTES ARE BEING TURNED AWAY???!!!!24.168.67.238 21:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In these cases-as the geography is vastly diverse...it should not be an issue...one vote to one person is only fair...regarding sockpuppets,what protects against longtime users not using the exact same ruse?..there should be no such distinctions.gmonkai.


 * Sounds to me that you are pretty savvy on this sock puppet stuff Android...following your link was the first I have learned of this issue.gmonkai.


 * Gmonkai, I think this VOTE for Deletion page goes on for another four days. I recommend that you tell this user, Placeboism, to keep trying or if they are having any problems to contact Infrogmation! WE MUST MAKE SURE VOTES ARE COUNTED, either way! However, I think that this is VfD is still corrupt because NOTHING was done to address the imposter issue. Gmonkai, if this user, Placeboism, has already signed up and really has been trying to VOTE (like you said) and if his VOTE is NOT BEING REGISTERED then this WHOLE VfD must be stopped until an INVESTIGATION is under way. For the benefit of justice, integrity and the entire process.24.168.67.238 21:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the 'impostor' will probably also be considered a sock puppet, right? Android79 21:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * he just tried a fourth and fifth time,to no avail...he is in Stockholm gmonkai.


 * CORRUPTION!!!! This VfD is not working!!! Gmonkai, we must insist that an INVESTIGATION is under way! I had a feeling this VfD was bogus. Here is a new user trying to cast a VOTE and is UNABLE to GET IN!!!!24.168.67.238 21:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Infrogmation,I assure you this person,far from being a vandal or any other wikipedia offender of any kind,is an artist of considerable reknown...there is not a site standard policy blocking him,unless it is standard site policy to block out all of Stockholm.gmonkai.I feel the number of KEEP votes would speak for themselves,if they were not being actively obstructed.gmonkai.
 * To my understanding the logging in was fine,it is the editing of this page that does absolutely not work for them...they have now retired to sleep...the hrs are eight hours different over there.gmonkai.

-
 * I am new to this myself...interesting system...impugns those that are new members before even allowing them a voice,impedes their voting process...I fear this may beget only a good encyclopedia for the tactics of fascism.gmonkai.


 * Yelling?...hmm..not on my part Alai...where are these "notability isn't policy" statements,"go away" and "stop stalking" remarks?..no exclamation points or capitals in my entries...and I ask of genuine curiosity?...so much talk of those who vote KEEP not playing nice...Look Alai,I believe we have a Texas individual(myself),an East Coast guy,and a Swede(discluded)...who is as nice and honest a guy as I've ever known...and in good faith trying to voice his support...and momentarily an Australian will be attempting...look the voters we provide...with registrations from geography all over(certainly this must be verifiable-em's on registrations)...The visceral nonissue statements proliferate among the deletes...it smacks of cronyism..but so what?...Cronyism should be allowed...so when this artisan's internationally dispersed advocates start to organize...and then come to call...and they are people of plenty good repute...and it is suggested that they "aren't being blocked unless they are vandals"...please,I know the people involved...maybe because I got my vote in in the wee hours of the morning,mine was allowed...what is your chosen apellation for a system that impugns people before allowing their voice...and impedes there vote?...Alas,and calmly my friend Alai,it bears no semblance to fairness...I will however patiently abide with this...and we will see if there is a way to get people a voice who want one...the only thing so far "vandalled" is a right for very decent people to vote.gmonkai.

-
 * As regards notability, yelling, etc, no, Gmonkai, not on your part. I was referring to the discussion on the article's talk page, where there was plenty of that from certain anonymous contributors.  I was not characterising all contributions here in that manner, though I'd say yours have been unfortunate in certain other respects, such as Godwin's Law.  Nor have I made any specific accusations as to anyone being a sock-puppet, I've simply quoted the policy on counting votes (with regard to those, but more to the point, new users turning up specifically for just such votes), and referred User:24.168.67.238 there as regards his complaints about User:Keith-Wigdor).  And yes, the geographical separation of IP addresses can be verified -- hence my comment about developers, who have the capability to do so.  I find the suggestions of "cronyism" and "visceral nonissue statements" deeply ironic.  If the people turning up here out of the blue to vote on this, any only this, and making no other contributions to Wikipedia at all aren't "cronies", then how would you describe them?  By exactly what process did they come across this discussion?  And if fascism, stalking, etc, aren't "visceral nonissue statements"?  In contrast the deletes seem to be from pre-existing wikipedians, with no obvious connection to each other (certainly no-one I'm a crony of, or vice versa), and citing legitimate deletion policy grounds for doing so.  (Conceivably mistaken on the facts, if Wigdor's importance as an artist is simply something they're unaware of, but valid policy.)  I'm happy to take you at your word as to your location, and hence that you're no-one's sock-puppet -- which I did not claim, and did not mean to imply, I'm sorry if I gave that impression.  But you're not an established member of the wikipedia community, and you haven't cited verifiable evidence for Wigdor's notability (which I remain 100% open to seeing), so I can't, personally give any more weight to your vote than the guidelines I quoted would imply.  (Or to User:Keith-Wigdor's, or to User:Cukestroke's, by the same criteria, or anyone else that shows up especially for this vote.)  Alai 01:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law makes no mention of fascism,or Mussolini,or Franco for that matter...so perusing this page's content...I see it has yet to be crossed...my exact words say "cronyism should be allowed"...as it is inevitable...but to this party evidently you conversational diletantes could not handle the influx of equal numbers with the other side to express...so we have KEEPS from all over the world that would have equaled the deletes numbers...qualified by familarity with his work...and forbidden entrance much less voice...I ask you again Alai,what appelation do you have for this closed process?..not exactly in the John Stuart Mill's spirit,is it?..to have this review closed down to but two members...yes I got a view of your talk page Alai...to my surprise and education it involves a long correspondence of braggadoccio and backslapping about defeating the Wigdor article...and correct they were...the enclave closed ranks and has made sure no one knowledgable and exposed to the topic will be afforded opportunities to speak...small triumph...and 180 degrees wide of your stated mission purpose...no body such as this will ever create a body of work that has relevance to any but themselves...if you can't grow with outside knowledge,then you become stale and irrelevant diletantism..gmonkai.
 * See, what did I tell you.24.168.67.238 00:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further,I have never heard this term "sock puppet" before today..but in my brief membership..the longterm members seem to exhibit a surpassing knowledge of this term...I enter all endeavours with an open mind...I would not have registered without at least an interest in learning what this site is about...My entries already exhibit that I am actively studying them...but there are people who I know,and they are artists,and in common they do have familarity with Keith Wigdor's art...I know these people and like them...and you Alai,and others are attempting to dismissively speak of them as 1)vandals,2)site policy violators,3)that they don't exist(some chenanigan that only longterm sitemembers seem to have evolved some deep knowledge about)...I know these people Alai...Their geographic distribution in and of itself absolutely refutes your "sock puppet" suggestion...and because I know for certitude that they are honest and of good repute...I resent the other two suggestions...By a stretch-and beyond the enclave of your longterm friends and cronies...can you with any honesty say that impugning people that don't have a voice...and impeding their right to vote...when they are exactly the people you have claimed you'd like to hear from...is a line of action that is less than dictatorial?..Let them have a voice...don't dismiss them without knowing or hearing them...or if otherwise stop playing a charade of having an objective to formulate a cooperatively and fair encyclopedia.gmonkai.
 * Take the sockpuppet detective's word for it...but it always turns out they are fine puppetmasters...lol...How absurd...


 * Dear Gmonkai, it reminds me of the Moscow Trials! So sad that Votes are being turned away with no evidence provided that they are, "sock puppets". So anyone that is a new user who comes in here to make a Legitimate Vote will be called a, "sock puppet" and they will be turned away and blocked! I already notified comrades to keep trying and we will see what happens!24.168.67.238 00:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * watch as anyone who tries to make a legitimate vote as a new user gets unfairly blocked! The only Votes that you will see in here from now on will be DELETION VOTES because of the unfairness! New users are being blocked because they are unfairly being labeled as, "sock puppets"! My message to any new user that comes in here, Wait 24 hours and try again, there are four days. Keep trying!24.168.67.238 00:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-
 * I thought that once you VOTED that it stays! Android79 just changed his VOTE!!! What the hell is going on???24.168.67.238 00:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of changing your mind? Android79 01:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * He's quite entitled to do so. Indeed, I've outlined what'd change mine; will you then complain if I do so? Alai 01:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Alai's, "Miserable Little Article" I knew he had bias.24.168.67.238 00:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My 'bias' against the article is long-standing. Haven't I been asking people to help improve it to something like enyclopaedic standards for the past month or so? If Wigdor is a Moderately Famous and Important Artist (to put the notability criteria in crude terms), the article does him a severe disservice by citing absolutely no critical opinion of his work whatsoever. Cite a decent amount of same, and I'll change my vote. If he's not a MFaIA, then the article has no real business being here. "Miserable" may be somewhat harsh (and bourne of frustration with the tenor of the discussion), but surely no-one could defend it as a great article, and I've seen no evidence of any strategy to improve it significantly. Alai 01:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well,seems a lost cause 24.168...I'm new to this frey...Alai approached my reg page with a pleasant greet and offer of help...answering this greet,with real questions about why new members who have the exact information he purported to want opinions on...are being impugned without a voice...and no vote representation...surprisingly I came upon a page full of backslapping and braggodoccio about defeating the Wigdor article...evidently what you have here is a very closeminded enclave and olligarchy who are one-hundred and eighty degrees wide of their stated mission purpose...Such a closeminded hierarchy cannot be capable of producing any body of work that will be relevant or meaningful to anyone outside of themselves...an irrelevant IN enclave not interested in expanding...a little mob of vigilante antics..a silly majority relevant to no one...A Taoist has to laugh at the absurdity of them...thank God for Brittannica and real encyclopedias...and be glad it isn't in the hands of internet frustrated conversational lackeys playing superlative games...fortunately real innovations exist,as do real canons of knowledge...Don't look here though...this is a wilderness of blind leading blind.Hypocrisy is abbhorent in all its manifestations.gmonkai.
 * If you can cite me evidence that Wigdor stands a remote chance of appearing in the next Britannica, I'll vote 'keep' in a heartbeat. I'd ask you to in any event desist from the sweeping personal attacks, however. For an oligarchy, its entry requirements are very liberal: you already meet all the requirements to be an oligarchical editor, and if you actually do some editting, you'd be fully qualified to have your vote counted in the next oligarchical VfD -- if you have any interest in any besides this one. I hope that doesn't have any Groucho Club-style deterrent effect. Alai 01:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Android 79 did that much earlier,and obediently to a Galimel prompt...it seemed prearranged to me...I wouldn't place much faith in feigns of objectivity at this sill site 24..gmonkai.
 * I'll take that as a personal attack. My decisions are my own. Apologies are in order. Android79 01:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Gmonkai, I took a look at the user page for Android79 and he admits to going on a VfD, "tear". Oh man! And we were under the impression that this was going to be fair. The article is going to get deleted. Gmonkai, the only votes you are going to see in here from now on are to delete.24.168.67.238 01:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

24.168.67.238 01:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Gmonkai, check this out. These are Android79's own words, "Lately I've been on a VfD tear (I seem to be good at randomly stumbling upon band vanity articles), but eventually I'll get around to contributing my own stuff, once I find a suitably small topic to write about."
 * What, exactly, is your point here? I'm a frequent VfD contributor, as are many of the other people participating in this discussion. Sometimes, I look for articles that are non-encyclopedic according to well-established guidelines and precedent (such as band vanity), and nominate them for deletion. IMO, this is something very useful to WP, as there is a lot of crap out there. Android79 03:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gmonkai. What kills me is that the article was originally created by a Wikipedia Administrator, Inforgmation. Then a representative of Wikipedia, EL_C, who is an editor on here, publically asks of the article subject to place one of the article subjects's artworks on to this website. Now the article is definitely going to be deleted, after seeing what I did see about defeating the article, it is a lost cause. Plus with the denial of Votes, people being turned away and the service allowing people to abuse the article subject, I see no reason to prolong the agony. Especially after the killing in here today and the change of Votes. I will save everything on here to file and contact the article subject to tell him what is happening to the article that a Wikipedia Administrator originally created, plus with the article subject being conned into giving permission of his art to be used on here(God only knows the real reason) only to have the article subject publically humiliated in this bogus VfD. Yes, it is a lost cause.24.168.67.238 01:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are Votes Being Turned Away???
Whats the deal?24.168.67.238 02:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well the page movement editing has succinctly altered coherency and flow...but to Alai's last...if you had any interest(such as you initially feigned)to objective and critical appraisal of this artist's work...a good initial step would be to allow those familar with his work entrance to express their views...Otherwise it's kind of a silly circle...an enclave of long established wikipedians has decided to put this article on trial as regards this artist's "notability"...any aware of this notability are barred entrance or voice...I began to delineate on a familarity with both a corpus of images and influential philosophies behind these images...I could expand much...and again,I have not met this artist in person...further it seems at the first presentation of a witness to this critical view..the door slammed lest others come and prove to you that this artist is notable among large international circles of artisans and his work influential...See one neutral and knowledgable member enter who can refute all your misspeculations a in your zeal to ridicule what you admittedly do not have a basis for knowledge about...and slam the door lest the tide that would have proved you wrong pour in...What I don't get is why you make pretenses of being anything but autocratic...and now clearly defined arguments are being shuffled...because the farce is so obvious.gmonkai.

Gmonkai, what kills me is the misery that they put us all through. Why didn't they delete the article the moment one of their Administrator's created it? This article was on Wikipedia for months. Now anything you say is labeled as a, "personal attack" if you object to the way this whole VfD evolved in the first place. Gmonkai, let me ask you. If an encyclopedia service went out of their way to create an article on you, then ASK you to use an artwork created by you to display on their website, (plus you giving permission for them to use it) then they decide to DELETE the article, what would you do?24.168.67.238 02:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) -

In the meantime, a cleanup is needed here on Wikipedia
I need to start a VfD on articles here on Wikipedia as well.24.168.67.238 14:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll help you, User#24.--Keith-Wigdor 15:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well,the impostor has a sense of humor,for sure-lol!As pointed out before,seems to me the only ones knowledgeable in sock puppets are these longtime users...Am I to expect an alterego g-monkai will some day emerge?Whoever you are really Keith-Wigdor(and definitely not the genuine artist)...you do truly give newcomers a nasty introduction to what underhanded tactics are all about...And in all seriousness,is there truly an appropriate place for your antics on a site purporting to be serious about encyclopedic editing?Were I a site monitor,you would be the first thing I would fish out,and then bar admission to all your aka's,whatever the real one is included...I laugh as I would at a good joke,coming from a felon on his way to meet a just punishment,but in truth you are giving the spirit of this site a tarnishing.Why don't you withdraw your entries and your false vote?Are you truly starting from such a position of insecurity that you need to cheat like this?gmonkai.

What are you talking about? I'm Keith Wigdor. Gemalial, WHY SHOULD I CHANGE MY USERNAME? I picked Keith Wigdor, and it should be my right. I'd be curious to know how long this "gmonkey" user has been in existence, and how he has the nerve to talk about "tarnishing" this encyclopedia? I hope some administrators look into your IP octet, Gmonkai. Some people here think I am an impostor, but I must assert here that I AM KEITH WIGDOR SURREALIST. This is very UNFAIR and I think I deserve better treatment than this. VIVA SURREALISM!!!!!! VIVA WIGDOR!!!!!--Keith-Wigdor 22:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And your possessive insinuations about art enline pages,accompanying your vote;infer no intent of duplicity?...These same pages have the actual artist Keith Wigdor's complaints about you being an impostor...and again in the above statement,you are making no distinctions between the genuine "Keith Wigdor" and your site aka "Keith-Wigdor"...whether or not this is a sock puppet aka for a longstanding member,or your only ID here-still you are operating with a duplicity that should be an embarassment to any serious Wikipedians.gmonkai.

I have nothing more to say to you, Gmonkai. I am an artist of the 21st century. VIVA WIGDOR!!!!!--Keith-Wigdor 23:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I know that I'm a first-time wiki editor, so I don't feel entitled to vote, but at least I wanted to show some support towards my big brother, Keith. What I wanted to ask the wiki-administrators was whether or not wikipedia has a paid-inclusion program. What I mean is that I'd like to pay you some money in order for Keith to keep his article going. I can understand why people reading this page might think that this just more sock-puppet antics, but if you check my IP address, you'll see that I'm sending this from Boston. KEITH WIGDOR IS THE GREATEST!!!!!! --Nancy-Wigdor 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm no administrator, but I can assure you the answer would be a resounding No. Android79 18:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am one, and I can confirm, no, that's not how Wikipedia works at all. Sorry, we are not a paid promotional form; I'm sure you can find such somewhere else on the web. -- Infrogmation 19:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The user, "Nancy-Wigdor" is a prankster
The user, "Nancy-Wigdor" is a prankster and is abusing the Wikipedia service. I already spoke with the artist and he wants these people to stop harrassing him online by abusing Wikipedia.Classicjupiter2 20:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keith Wigdor's website http://artenligne.com/@/KeithWigdor (March 6 entry) denies the identiy of the supposed sister "Nancy Wigdor", so the above post was likely some type of trolling. -- Infrogmation 22:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)