Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask[edit]

Illegitimate FARC of an illegitimate Featured Article. See Below. Article is currently not featured.

This article achieved featured article candidate status via fraud; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding. I intend to be bold and remove it presently, but am listing it here just to be complete. I suggest that because of the fraud, this article in fact never honestly became a featured article. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it should go through the full FAC process again, from the beginning. Nandesuka 16:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for those who are confused, here's the procedure we're going to follow w/ regard to the controversy over this article. Raul654 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is going to be the end of itself. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I did not want to be involved in the FAC process, but regardless of this quality, it is my opinion that Hollow Wilerding cheated the FAC process, and I cannot in good faith vote Keep, regardless of quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for now. The article may be worthy of FA status, but I'd rather a clean vote be cast. Nandesuka, please let this run its course before removing the FA status. H e rmione1980 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, I am a Zelda fan, but proofs seem overwhelmings. The article looks FA worthy, but the vote should be recast in the future. I also agree with Hermione1980 that the article should keep its status until the votation is finished, if only for courtesy with all those who contributed in good faith to the article. -- ReyBrujo 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per User:Hermione1980. With regard to the issue of the issue of posting a FARC notice on a recently promoted article, which should be mentioned, Raul654 indicated in an earlier dispute that it could be an appropriate way to address claims of "gaming" the FAC process, and that is the issue here.Monicasdude 17:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. In fact, considering the irregularities I'd support "speedy removal" of FA status and immediate relisting at FAC. Coffee 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Thoroughly tainted nomination process- no way of knowing how the debate would have gone without the puppetry. Mark ¹ 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Needs to go through a legit FAC process. --Wgfinley 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Terrible abuse of FAC process by Hollow Wilderding and "associates". Harro5 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, if we want to keep the good name of WP, then the transparency of the process must be ensured. Phaedriel 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Removal should have been speedy as far as I am concerned, but if it's slow OK as long as it is removed. DreamGuy 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. If the article were resubmitted to FAC by an honest editor, I might consider supporting it (even though I voted oppose in the first place — apparently my objection wasn't well-considered), but as it stands this article's FA status is an indicator not of the article's quality but of how broken the FAC system is. --keepsleeping sleeper cell 06:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per all above. Regardless of the FA-worthiness of this article, fraud is not on. Delete, then resubmit to FAC. Batmanand 11:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per all above. And an investigation into all other FAs nominated by User:Hollow Wilerding should be done. --malber 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Fraudulent FAC deliberation. Geogre 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—oh please, let's clean up the FAC process. Tony 06:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE
This article should have been re-FAC'ed rather than FARC'ed. There is precedent for re-FAC'ing: See Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/History_of_South_Carolina. Additionally, this FARC and the majority of the remove votes are clearly about the illegitamacy of the article's FAC, rather than issues with the article itself, which is the purpose of FARC. The FAC was illegitamate, this FARC is illegitamate, and as such I am both Being Bold and Ignoring All Rules, speedy "demoting" the article and closing this discussion. It will be up to the article's creators to re-FAC the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]