Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies

Moved from discussion page

 * Delete: An article like this is quite libelous, not are we only claiming these group are secretive, but into the occult as well. And also appears to be a collaborative sysnthesis. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It cannot honestly be called "libelous" when the items on the list are described as secret socities in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Honestly", please assume good faith. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to assume. I know you from past discussions.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People are welcome to compare your history with mine, rfc, blocks, ANI etc. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They would see indiscriminate calls to delete everything without any actual basis. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everything, just trivia, big difference. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relations between real world countries, fictional characters from multiseason television shows viewed by millions, secret socities with scores of members and written about in books and featured on televised documentaries are hardly "trivial". What the handful of accounts that hover over AFDs to say to delete what they subjectively deem trivial is usually only trivial to that vocal minority, when in actuality the content is relevant to some larger segment of our readership who do not dwell on Afds and when the content's existence would mean no real detriment to those trying to ruin things for others.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll see I !voted to delete, because this is a libelous synthesis. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it is of course not. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectively material cited through reliable sources meets our standards of inclusion per consensus. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Libelous OR synthesis does not however. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article we are discussing is none of those things, however. Even For Dummies covers the subject "occult secret socities".  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More moved from discussion page

 * Yes, and we now have demonstrated once again why the ARSE is an enemy of even trying to create a reliable, accurate reference work. You people have tortured the word "verifiable" beyond all bounds of its actual meaning.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "You people", "enemy"? Please leave the racist battleground comments out of discussions.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Racist? Good lord. No. You apparently share a twisted ideology with others that is hostile to actual scholarship. That's the problem. It's what's in your head, not who your parents are.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We know what is meant by "you people"... --A NobodyMy talk 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, A Nobody's gone off the rails... Abductive  (reasoning) 16:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is bad enough when accounts uninterested in improving content keep showing up trying to get rid of what interests others, then to have them insult others on top of it is just uncalled for. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in the WikiCup, adding articles on topics that aren't synthesis; check out my articles created. You know that "you people" refers either to the Rescue Squadron or to inclusionists, and was not meant to be racist. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work mate, I liked the earthquake one. Check mine, we've made quite a few, not bad for people who indiscriminately want to delete everything. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My last new article was Rebecca Chambers (pianist), who is white; I did previously create I Gusti Ngurah Rai, who was not. Alas, neither seems to be a fictional TV character or to have been involved in any occult secret societies (although the TNI is rather secretive about some of its activities. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which means it is a blanket insult of a group of editors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was meant as constructive criticism of certain members of the ARS's poor scholarship and misuse/abuse of sources. Note that I have helped improve some articles tagged for rescue by the ARS, and even tagged a couple for rescue myself. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is nothing more than the usual bogus attack amidst misleading and untrue claims about a notable topic for which no legitimate reasons for outright scrapping rather than improving. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling an editor who clearly uses the common phrase "you people to refer to the Article Rescue Squadron en bloc "racist" is indeed 'the usual bogus attack' as well as 'misleading and untrue' as there is no evidence that members of the ARS belong to one particular race (although it is probably reasonable to assume the human) and thus no legitimate reason exists for such an unwarranted slur. Cordially,  pablo hablo. 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you kidding? We know it was meant as a bad faith attack of some kind.  I will accept his apology if he offers one, however.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it you're standing by your characterization of Bali ultimate as a racist? Curious, Jack Merridew 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tauting an image seeing tourists as devils is not exactly friendly to us non-Balinese. Aside from that, now there may be some cultural differences in understanding of phrases. In my region of America, "you people" is typically understood as having a certain kind of negative and dismissive connotation, usually in a racist bent (see the trailer for a particular Adam Sandler movie that emphasizes as much), but certainly is almost always at least intended in a dismissive bent and when used in the same sentence that calls people "enemies", i.e. a WP:BATTLEGROUND expression, it would be naive to take it as having any kind of WP:CIVIL intention. Naturally, those towing the party line will ignore that and instead of say trying to at worst return the discussion to be about sources and content will over the top style defend the one who called editors "you people" in an obviously condescending expression with "enemy" following and seize the moment to disruptively badger someone who came to this discussion focusing on content first before being baited (perhaps I should not take the bait, but I try not to let myself be bullied). Notice that in my comment he replied to, I mention no one, no group, etc.; rather, I discuss the article and why it should be kept and challenge arguments, not editors, or groups of editors. Yet, he replies not only with "you people" and "enemies", but also with "ARSE" (like buttocks...) as the abbreviated version of "Article Rescue Squadron". An obvious and we would be naive to assume otherwise deliberate distinction, for indeed you duplicate this name calling attack here, where you once again denigrate those you disagree with as being "unreasonable" (by contrast, I just supported a candidate citing as reasonable his argument to merge, even though my stance was to keep). We are not going to pretend that some overt and some implied insults are anything but. It is clear that these editors are seen by him as some kind of "other". See Talk:List_of_the_occult_secret_societies and Talk:List_of_the_occult_secret_societies: "I really don't care about your opinions," "I don't give a shit about 'truth'," "Youre just as bad, Schmidt," "Standard behavior for the core membership of the WP:ARS," etc. Seriously now, imagine how much the same editors feigning outrage now would act if I said something like "You deletionists are the enemy"! I don't know if "you people" has the same meaning in Bali as I have never been there, but I know what it means when said where I come from. And even if not meant as used where I live, it was nevertheless used along side "ARSE" ("Article Rescue Squadron" does not have another "e" word that follows) and "enemy". Playing on spelling to make the group be another word for "buttocks" and seeing them as the "enemy" leaves little to interpret. Now I hope to once again follow WP:DENY as I have largely been doing and I trust anyone who is here to edit constructively and not play games will not try to defend or excuse something blatanly meant as some kind of insult and attack nor try to discuss anything other than actual and specific sources and how best to use this content per WP:PRESERVE. The bottom line is that there is an interest in the concept of "occult secret societies" that merits some kind of inclusion in Wikipedia and we should be considering these other options fully before just quitting and if multiple editors want to keep trying then we should allow them further time and opportunity to do so. If those defending the article all said they are unwilling to try to improve it further, okay, but that is not the case and I per WP:AGF, Potential, not just current state, There is no deadline, Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Editors matter, and Give an article a chance, I see no reason why we would not extend that courtesy for as long as they need. Good bye. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my circles, bent is a euphemism for homosexual. You seem to have a parochial vocabulary. Jack Merridew 22:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In mine, a bent could be any peculiar habit that is beyond an eccentricity. It's an old word.  OED: bent, noun .2b. esp. Mental inclination or tendency; disposition; propensity, bias. The usual modern sense.   Seems to date from the 16th century.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I kid no one; you have called another editor a racist. This is (where I live) an extremely serious accusation. I don't know what the norms are where you live.  pablo hablo. 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the same sentence he refers to members of the ARS as "ARSE", i.e. "buttocks", and "enemy." Being denigrated as a "butt" and an "enemy" is indeed a rather serious combination of insults.  Tossing in the additional dismissive/mocking "you people" just makes it all the worse.  And it follows up on calling people "idiots" and is defended by someone who calls other editors "the troll with the very small, penis."  Are you really that interested in defending incivility or is there "Any chance of actually discussing the article?"  If the latter, then I encourage us to consider some of the various alternative solutions proposed below.  Take care!  --A NobodyMy talk 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to thank nobody for having that diff of an AN/I comment of mine from May 2009 handy. Made me laugh, and i stand by every word of it. In full:


 * Its obvious to anyone that comes with fresh eyes and without bias that she has acted appaulingly and much worse than either KB or myself." I have never edited with any of you and don't care for the topics at hand. I care far more for boxing than baronets or other idiots covered in Twerp's Peerage or whatever encyclopedia on these monstrosities is (what was it wilde said about fox hunting -- "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.") in common use. So, from my unbiased, uninvolved perch, it is obvious to me that your behavior was the more "appauling" and disruptive. You have largely created the drama and your topic ban is well placed. No such behavioral restrictions are needed for BHG, who i'm sure will adhere to "uninvolved" in the future.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concocting an allegation of racism out of a benign usage of you people is beyond the pale and is a block-worthy personal attack. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You people (where I come from) is also used fairly negativly. But it does not automaticly have rascist connotations. So on the one hand, yes I beleive it was meant to be dismisive, on the other the accusation it was rascist is also wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will gladly give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not necessarily mean "you people" as racist. It is simply how it almost always is used where I live and given that he is allegedly from another country, I will accept that it could have a different meaning there.  At the same time, if not racist, it was still meant negatively as is clear in the context it was used.  I therefore hope that he will similarly apologize for viewing the ARS as a "buttocks" (ARSE) and as the "enemy".  We should be more mature than to slip into name calling and we should not be thinking of editing Wikipedia as a place to call groups of editors names nor viewing those with whom we disagree as "enemies".  Rather, we should be helping each other to improve content and in a civil manner.  Anyway, time to eat spaghetti! :)  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK lets take this outside shall we, your upsetting the trolls. This means everyone involved, not one user.Slatersteven (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still more

 * Comment- I would also like to register a strong protest against the behaviour of the Obstructionist Voting Block. It's been clear for some time that the ARS is dominated by a tight clique of strident inclusionists who feel that the role of the ARS is to wage an unending war against the evil scary deletionists: a war that they need to win whether the encyclopedia benefits by this or not. I consider the "rescue" tag to be inappropriate canvassing, because it is intended to alert only inclusionists, and I consider the "turn up, vote keep, disappear" approach to article rescue to be despicable. That can maybe be forgiven and tolerated to a degree when the only people being deceived are the Wikipedia community- but where I draw the line is this misuse of sources just to put one over the Evil Scary Kitten-Eating Deletionist Legion of DoomTM. Cobbling together a bullshit article by claiming sources say something they don't deceives our readers! This is unforgivable, intolerable and needs to stop right now. Reyk  YO!  05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this voting-bloc stuff, and I know we don't go by raw-vote totals in AfD, but if they are here as a bloc, they aren't very effective by sheer numbers. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, its like the theory that ACORN runs the U.S. Government. While I haven't been around for its duration, the deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia debate is nothing new.  Personally, I joined the ARS when I became active on Wikipedia because I saw ignorant editors nominating notable subjects for deletion which could be improved.  That is truly intolerable behavior, which actually garners negative press coverage for Wikipedia.  Drive-by Keeps and Drive-by Deletes are equally common and useless, and have little effect on AfD outcomes from what I've seen.  But when an article is substantially improved during an AfD one would hope the nominator would withdraw the nomination (e.g., Articles for deletion/Nathan Rosenberg), that is what the ARS is about.--Milowent (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may Realkyhick, I think what Reyk might be trying to say is: that on other AFDs, some user feel that the ARS Rescue template could be abused to WP:CANVASS support. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I'm seeing how that might happen. It appears that the ARS may have strayed a bit from its original mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more like a political party; full of self-righteousness, full of their own message, inherently divisive, &c. Think of it as a soapbox for a particular view of what Wikipedia should be and as a means of rallying the faithful to the cause (which is to !vote keep on just about everything;). They also add an incredible flurry of lightweight and outright irrelevant references to articles; no ghit is too insignificant for the bois. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had my way I would construct a great steely mechanical death machine and scramble up upon it as I set the oily cogs into motion and rode screaming with sword and blade flailing straight at the Article Rescue Squadron screaming "Flame! Flame! Flame! Here is the fire of DESTRUCTION!! I WILL CRUSH!!" and all the article rescue squadron would perish beneath the steely tracks and wheels of the machine and burn and be crushed! DESTROY! Coffeepot101 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The AfD is veering again. I would suggest that, since there are some strong opinions on the ARS on both sides here, perhaps it may be wiser to take that to a wider forum (village pump?), and get a community consensus on the wider issue there where it may have some impact on the community at large, and otherwise restrict the material here to the topic at hand. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, no, let's just wait for the closing admin to delete it, and chuckle to ourselves that certain editors in the ARS have pilloried themselves for this article, revealing their deep misunderstanding of the nature of scholarship, NPOV, consensus, and any number of relevant policies.... Actually, please do mention it at the Village Pump. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * think someone forgot to eat their Wheaties this morning.--Milowent (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)