Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive517

A sample edit of what he has been doing is here. Here's another. Themfromspace (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should stop and address this here. I will write a message -- Samir 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ARS used to be non "partisan." Just noting that it wasn't always to blatantly slanted. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and troubled by this, and I'd rather see a decrease in the partisanship than anything else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was slanted when I added a Userbox for it ages ago. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 06:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note, Ikip just declined our conversation. Something must said to him before he continues tomorrow. This has gone on for several days now in hour long bursts. And no, in theory the ARS isn't biased, but just look at what happens when an article gets tagged for rescue: the same few people jump in and invariably vote to "keep" the article. In practise it's very slanted. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what harm there is. I didn't even know about this organization until he stuck it on my talk page. MalikCarr (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The harm is that he's gaming the system. By sending the template only to users with the "inclusionist" template on their page, his posts are biased. Also they are mass-scale, and can be seen to be used to influence AfD debates since ARS is structured around those debates. Themfromspace (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Themfromspace, I am sure that you are only concerned about the project, and this has nothing to do with your

userbox

on your user page, err i mean views of wikipedia.

Please note that A Man In Black, like Themfromspace and LeaveSleaves, have polar opposite views than I do. A Man In Black and I frequent the same policy pages.

I have gotten nothing but positive responses from the editors that I have posted this invitation on. I love

WP:ARS because we save articles by adding references, making wikipedia a better stronger encyclopedia. For example, I found and added 8 great references to Ndaba kaMageba

and asked the nominator to close the AfD nomination today.

talk

) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want

WP:ARS to turn into Inclusion Squad Hyper Team Go. I want it to be the project that saves articles by referencing them. That's a Good Thing, and it's been a Good Thing ever since I praised ARS at its first MFD. Why are you spamming inclusionists only, when that's going to overwhelm any neutrality the project ever had? Why are you spamming anyone at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops

) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it is "spamming"? Is posting Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is canvassing? How about the other 260 templates that everyone here is ignoring? See the policy discussion about what is and what is not canvassing below.

Why does [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam post their tag to those editors who remove linkspam from Wikipedia?

Lets be honest A man in black, you vote mostly delete on the AfD circuit, I don't. I have never seen you improve an article when it is in AfD. I am sure you have done it, but I have never seen it. So your praise of ARS seems a little bit...you fill in the blank.

talk

) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That project is not politically controversial, and nobody has used it to advertise for political partisans. I have difficulty believing your intentions weren't political when your response to any criticism of your conduct is to accuse your critics of opposing your politics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As another note (mostly to themfromspace), it is entirely legitimate for a user to remove messages without comment from their talk page. It may seem brusque or uncivil, but it is within his rights to do so and we shouldn't use his lack of a response to the original message as a hint of malign intent. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out a previous instance of such postings by Ikip. During the RfC at

WP:FICTION, Ikip posted a number of messages on various talk pages of articles related to fiction. My request to stop did not deter him/her from continuing. ^LeaveSleaves

07:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, you forgot to mention that the neutral message was okayed with two administrators before it went out, and that it was only posted on episode and character pages, no user talk page. Pages I might add which were going to be dramatically affected by

talk

) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, for some reason, you are conflating LeaveSleaves and Flatscan. While we both approached you regarding the WP:FICT notices, we are distinct editors. My concern was not the wording of your notice, but the number of article Talk pages on which you posted it: around 165 notices when I counted, and more later, stopping just before Kww threatened to report you on AN/I. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As Flatscan pointed out Ikip, we are distinct editors. I have very limited involvement at WP:FICT. In fact, I did not even participate in the said RfC. My concern was with the speed and number of posts you were making on article talk pages. Unfortunately you did no deem it necessary to respond to my concern. My interaction with you is limited to that single message I posted on your talk page, until now. I have no interest in "digging through [your] edits for dirt". ^LeaveSleaves 07:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I gladly joined his group, and I'm looking forward to working with it. I don't see what rule he violated by sending me an invitation. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at talk ) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this very WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron . Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

talk

) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for turning the argument directly against me. The problem here isn't the templates themselves but how they are used. I have never once used the template you associate me with. You have used yours on a massive scale. Not only that, but an incredibly partisan scale. Wikiproject spam isn't partisan at all and gets next to no opposition from the Wikipedia community while the ARS has been subject to deletion discussions several times. You have an agenda behind your postings, thats what makes it canvassing. Themfromspace (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I'm sure inviting indef blocked users to join the cause really helps</sarcasm> --Versageek 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed, please let me know if there are any other cases.

talk

) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly don't understand the need for this page to begin with. After all, the obvious places to go for expertise and/or input regarding articles on obscure and/or specialised subjects in need of expert help to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia standards should the boards of Wikiprojects which are directly related to the subject matter. From the looks of that page, it might be better re-titled the 'Every Sperm is Sacred Article Vote-Stacking Squadron'. And with the blatant canvassing, even more so. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's unfair and a violation of
    WP:AGF. I have no particular association with the Article Rescue Squadron, but I've seen a few AfD's in which they've tagged an article for rescue; most recently, Perley G. Nutting. I don't recall ever seeing a problem with vote stacking in such a case (and may I remind you, AfDs are not votes); what I have seen is improvement to the article under discussion, from a point where it looked plausibly speediable to a point where it was obvious that it should be kept. I think such efforts should be greatly encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk
    ) 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's perfectly fair and an observation of actual behaviour. The reaction to criticism and personal opinion, by the way, ought not be the knee-jerk misapplying of initialisms like
      WP:AGF to stifle view-points you don't like. --CalendarWatcher (talk
      ) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It's possibly an observation of a tiny minority of editors' actual behaviours. But it's far from the purpose of Article Rescue. One of the fundamental principles underlying article rescue is that if one doesn't edit the article to make it better, one isn't actually rescuing it. One is simply being an AFD discussion participant. Article rescue is article work, and it doesn't require discussion participation, especially if multiple rescuers are collaborating. I've rescued several articles without making any contribution to the AFD discussion other than a horizontal rule to show where in the timeline of the discussion I Kerrrzappp!ed the article. Indeed, at NEAT chipset (AfD discussion) I rescued an article with no edits to the discussion at all.

        Article rescue isn't an "-ism" of any flavour except "encyclopaedism". (On a side note I observe, again, that I've never seen a use of "deletionist" or "inclusionist" that wasn't involved in calling other editors names.) One rescues what can be rescued, at times taking joy in the amazement of others at what turns out to be possible. If the actions of one editor, or a group of editors, turns Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron into a ballot-stuffing mob, intent on flash-crowding AFD discussions and doing no article work at all, as existed (much to the detriment both of Wikipedia and its community) in years gone by with a few subjects before we settled down with reasonable ideas about notability, that doesn't mean that article rescue is the problem. It means that those editors will have ceased to be article rescuers, and the instigators of that change will have not served the encyclopaedia, or AFD, well.

        I suggest that you don't observe the unrepresentative, albeit vocal, tiny minority of editors whose focus is to call other editors names with "-ism"s, and start observing the actual article rescues peformed by article rescuers, from Lampman's work at List of United States presidents by handedness (AfD discussion) to those listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#Selected previous rescues. That is what article rescue is, any and all of the hot air from "-ism" name callers notwithstanding. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip and

WP:ARS

advertising

Moved from

I can't exactly place my finger on why, but I'm troubled by

The project maintains a widely-transcluded list of borderline AFDed articles. Unlike topical lists, there are no criteria for placement on that list other than a member of the project wanting the rest of the project to look at that article. This wouldn't bother me so much, except that "throw out the deletionist" rhetoric is common on the talk page, the project page links a variety of inclusionist essays prominently, and Ikip just advertised the project to everyone he could find that self-identifies as an inclusionist.

I brought up similar concerns at WT:Canvassing and the project's talk page, with little result and mostly unreassuring scorn from the same people doing the things that concern me. I'm not opposed to this project in theory, but I keep seeing signs of it turning into a partisan canvassing project. Could I get some input here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of swift input would be appreciated; Ikip has now tagged hundreds of talk pages in the last fifteen minutes or so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed another user has brought this very subject up on AN/I. You might want to combine the two posts on the high-traffic AN/I. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 06:39

This is ANI. Might want to fix your copy-and-paste. =P —kurykh 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is

Damn, I posted at the wrong place. Now I look like an idiot. —kurykh 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is this - "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." that is disturbing. If that was deleted, it might be acceptable along with all the other Project invitations. The bottom line is either we remove the project or we let them have a project invitation like other projects. I am in favour of not removing the project but hoping it will get more NPOV, so the invitation needs cleaning up. Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will happily remove it, if you wish. I added that line because of a suggestion from

talk

) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. ARS has the express purpose of improving articles - why is that bad? And who would you invite to join - expressed inclusionists; expressed deletionists; every possible editor? Obviously inclusionists might be more inclined to look at the project and decide to make significant contributions to poor articles. This is not a matter of winning the keep/delete !vote, it's about getting lots of quality articles. Any "canvassing" is not designed to achieve any result other than improvement. That's still a good thing, right? Franamax (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not in what the ARS claims to be, but in what it is. Looking at the talk page, it's quite clear that whatever the initial goals were, this has become a "political" organisation. Posts such as this, this and this are what worry me. There's nothing wrong with editors having opinions, but a semi-offical (there's a link to their WP:RESCUE on the AFD page) club used to organise "pushes" is more worrying. yandman 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before with the ARS - it certainly does good work on rescuing some articles, but it wouldn't be helpful to have the situation recur where AfD-closing admins were having to discount reams of Keeps on AfDs of clearly non-notable articles because people had got over-enthusiastic. Black Kite 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting tht closing admins simply count votes abd discount the discussions? If An admin sees 5 unadorned or ILIKEIT keeps, and one cogent and well discussed reason for delete, whi is the admin going to pay attention to? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't happen, but yes it occasionally does. My point is more that it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Black Kite 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, ARS specifically gets a wide berth because their goals are to save articles and their methods are to (ostensibly) improve the article rather than simply join the debate. When that second point ceases to be the case, we need to look at them just as hard as we would look at a "Deletion squadron", noting borderline AfDs which might benefit from some deletionist input. Protonk (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's ironic that Ikip is canvassing [3] [4] this very discussion to users who have given him positive feedback about his template, also labelling me a "deletionist" at the same time. Will the
  battle ever end? He is urging people to come here and voice their support. Themfromspace (talk
  ) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those two users just joined ARS, I wanted to let them know about the wikidrama you are stoking, and that you were opposed to me letting them know about

talk

) 08:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your words: ":Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your talk page, by a self proclaimed deletionist" I can't imagine that this was a productive post. What did you intent to accomplish with it? Protonk (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Refactored 2 minutes later: "Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your and other editor's talk page, by an editor who has the deletionist tag on his talk page" Let me repeat what I wrote above I wanted these two editors to know about the wikidrama that Themfromspace was stoking, and that he was opposed to letting them know about

talk

) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, I can't continue this discussion any more. Hopefully a consensus can be established as I sleep and hopefully it will determine what you are doing is wrong. I highly recommend people read over

bad. Peace out. Themfromspace (talk

) 08:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut and paste our discussion we had about this already:

WP:Canvassing first sentence: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."

Where is the community discussion? No community discussion, no canvassing.

Should

talk

) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We're wading into wikilawyering territory, but here goes: I invite you to take a look at the note attached to that very sentence you quoted: "Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post." —kurykh 08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: you're conflating three things: one being the existence of the invitation, second being the message contained in said invitation, and third being to whom the message is targeted. The first is not a problem, the second being the major issue here, and the third is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. —kurykh 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that getting people to join ARS is *not* about saving articles, although that might be a side-effect, it's to ensure that another people are standing by the next time they try and get notability deleted or marked as a failed essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possibly - I have always tried to AGF regarding this issue, but this by Ikip, linked above is troubling - " I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This isn't about rescuing possibly saveable articles, is it? Black Kite 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Also, this AfD for an article tagged with ARS is the type of thing I'm talking about. Look at all the Keeps with non-rationales, some from ARS members who haven't tried to fix the article at all (it's still completely unsourced). Then, compare the Keep from User:DGG, who as usual has it exactly correct. Black Kite 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a common sense approach be to establish the harm done, or harm to be done. This is a hugely constructive effort by Ikip, to organize people who would be willing to throw time into rescuing other people's work, because their work might be deleted by wikipedians, who argue for deletion because the article has some sort of problem, but will not spend time to fix the issues themselves. I'm asking: "what's the harm done?" by organizing people to fix endangered articles, so they conform to Wikipia's high standards. Alternatively, what is the harm done by stopping Ikip in fixing endangered articles. I see no attempt to influence AfD discussions here, this critique is ill conceived. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  The harm that was done was that a project that needs to walk a bit of political tightrope in order to do its work, work which is a net good for the wiki, was just advertised to hundreds of people who have self-declared their partisanship in that political circle. At best, this complicates focusing the project on article improvement and not politics. At worst, it marries tools that stand to do a great deal to overwhelm AFD with bloc action with self-declared political partisans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article is improved to meet concerns at an AfD, is wiki not itself improved? I'd hate to think anyone in this discussion will disagree. There are thousands of articles at AfD at any one time and only a handful of volunteers at ARS able to get to them in our continued efforts to improve wiki. And many of these require input from willing experts in certain fields. So... Ikip is asking help from editors in order to continue improving the project by improving articles. Would it have made any kind of sense to send a request to save artilces to anyone who do not show interest in improving other's articles? proudly displays a "deletionist" tag? All he saying is "want to help improve wiki?" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is arguing against your initial premise. More of a problem is the possibilities of AfD spamming (which has happened before) and the canvassing on policy issues. I'd also take issue with your last point - I probably veer towards the deletionist side on many issues, but I have fixed articles that I have seen at AfD plenty of times, which is why I think the "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" argument is one to avoid. I doubt if there are many "hardcore deletionists", or what would be the point in them being here? Black Kite 09:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Right. There are two steps here. One is arguing that ARS is becoming less and less about making substantive improvements to articles scheduled for deletion and more and more about organizing arguments against deletion. The second stems from the first. If we accept the first premise (we don't have to, but roll with it), then we have to treat much of the "communications" made by Ikip et al. as canvassing of some sort. Again, ARS gets treated differently from "inclusionist" or "deletionist" projects because their stated mission is avowedly non-partisan. Once the mission comes into question, that status has to be questioned as well. I mean, we can agree that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion and that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. Let's pretend that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion decided to have a central location where they could discuss AfD debates which were on the margin. Let's go further and say that once they did this, they determined that they didn't have enough people commenting, so they went out and found people who had "deletionist" userboxes or people who had voted to make WP:N policy and invited them to that discussion. Would we consider that somewhat untoward? Also, I should note that this isn't the first time a partisan slant has been added to ARS. Ikip previously attempted to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion with ARS and WICU, and was stopped only when Banjiboi and User:Realkyhick started an AN/I thread about it. In the ensuring drama, he accused reallyhick of being a radical deletionist, accused me of being a meatpuppet for a banned user and flared out. I see this as a somewhat more subtle continuation of that previous attempt. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tempered that sentence. I have voted delete at many AfD's and only "keep" when I think there is a chance the article might meets standards. Do the deletes nake me a delitionists? Do the keeps make ne an inclusionist? Or is trying to do the best for the project just make me an "editor". Hmmm... okay. I gotta give Ikip credit for doing the utmost to bring fresh blood to the ARS... as we feel quite overwhelmed at times. His tag, if to ever be used again, might best be an invitaion that states "The ARS promotes a non-partisan efort to improve Wiki. If you'd like to join, leave the politics at the door." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Innoculating ARS against politics would be a Good Thing, although I think it'd need more than that if problems persist. I think ARS in concept and more or less in practice is the opposite of

WP:POINT: improving the wiki to prove a point. Overt political efforts are a threat to the project, but not a problem of it unless they are tolerated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops

) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the problem is that you're not leaving politics at the door, Michael. How is this leaving politics at the door? "An interesting debate that should interest Rescue Squad members....". How is this not vote shopping? Ikip's answer to the latter says it all: "not officially"... yandman 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as he's doing it manually and not by bot. I can certainly understand why you, A Man In Black, who is a deletionist, would be irritated by him mostly selecting inclusionists for his group. Let's just say that your complaints about this ring slightly hollow.

If you're worried about what direction the organization will take, join it yourself and keep an eye on it instead of trying to squelnch it. Jtrainor (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment is a preview of the response to any concerns that

WP:ARS is becoming a partisan task force if this sort of advertising is allowed to continue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops

) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's pretty poor form. AMiB's complaints about this are pretty reasoned. If you want to accuse someone of playing politics, pick your targets better. Protonk (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is going off tangent now, and I don't see any reason for admin intervention at the moment. Should this thread me moved to
  WT:ARS or somewhere similar? Black Kite
  10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm encouraging people to join the Article Rescue Squadron if they are going to rescue articles by improving them; but I would be concerned that Ikip may be trying to convert the ARS to his own rather combative anti-AfD approach where nominators he disagrees with get intemperate attacks at AfD, and threats such as "If necessary, I can request to see the history of the other 15 articles you put up for deletion" so that he can decide whether they were "Abuse of the AfD process." JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Note: comments linked to above have since been refactored by Ikip. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

And restored per #Editing a closed AfD to refactor one's intemperate comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2)Please yandman, go to any policy page and you have a group of like minded editors who push there own agendas on how wikipedia should be. Don't hold WP:ARS to a standard that no other policy page or Wikigroup follows.

I suggest that this ANI be closed too. (refactored out) For once I agree with Black Kite, lets just close this topic.

(AKA

talk

) 10:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ikip. Not useful. THIS is what ARS is about. The time we are spedning here... you included... is time better spent fixing what's broke instead of arguing about how it got broke. I'd rather fix the damn pipe that stand around complaining about having wet feet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Only 106 AfDs in over 2 years? I must be slipping. Note however that a number of those are procedural noms or moved across from PROD/CSDs that I wasn't sure about deleting (you'll find this with the stats for a lot of admins), so such figures can be misleading. Black Kite 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Only users I consider sufficiently inclusionist are allowed to criticize me" is a problematic attitude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...please add the edit diff on that quote. :)

talk

) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone who is criticizing is actually doing it because they don't like that I'm an inclusionist, whether they know it or not" isn't much better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit diff please?

As I mentioned below, yes AMIB, you are here to improve wikipedia and make the project better, we all are. As wikipedians, we leave all of our biases at the door, and we change into enyclopedist outfits, ready to make the project a better place. We are always fair and unbiased in our judgements as enyclopedists.

talk

) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come now, look at the header of this section. It clearly says that AMIB isn't sure something is actually wrong here, but feels bad about it and wants something done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The edits that JohnCD has linked to are very worrying. I would suggest renaming the page to something a little less "The Incredibles" and simply not allowing canvassing/spamming. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for input because I am uncomfortable acting because I don't know what to do and feel any action I take could be mistaken for partisan action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes dear Jtrainor, AMIB, like everyone here, only wants the best for wikipedia and the project.

talk

) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, nothing to see here and is starting to get heated. Tea for all, fifteen minutes for the brass band to play and then lets get back to improving the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Edit I just performed: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#Code_of_conduct. Not too bold. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#So the ARS are wild-eyed inclusionists? was already there, on the main page, notice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having that statement about inclusionists/deletionists on the ARS template has a very unfortunate connotation, as you can see if you try substituting other words: what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily white people, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." or what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily Hindus, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." - do you see the problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?

Let me ask this simple: Where is the need for admin intervention in this? The thread starter claims, he does not want another inclusionist-deletionist discussion but that is exactly what happened. What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote. If the keep-arguments are weaker than the delete ones, then it does not matter how many of them there are.
So, if ikip wants more people to join ARS, who cares? It's not canvassing because all he says is "come and help improving articles". Everything else is pure interpretation of his motives and, as I outlines above, not really a problem. I wish we could avoid such unneeded discussions here. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 10:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip was spamming hundreds of talk pages, and by all indications intends to resume doing so tomorrow. If his message or intent is problematic and he doesn't desist, that is an issue that requires admin intervention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• He has desisted for the moment. If he starts again, then I would suggest starting a new thread at ANI, with a link to this one. I don't believe advertising the ARS to sympathetic users is problematic; wikilawyering or focusing the ARS on politics would be. Black Kite 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  And if he advertises to 400 more users then stops, will we simply say, "Well, what do you want us to do now?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  I doubt if there are many more users with inclusionist userboxes that he hasn't contacted. If he expands that canvassing to other users, then that clearly fails

  WP:CANVASS. At the moment, I am wary of characterising this as disruption. If those who join up with ARS fail to follow its guidelines and are disruptive, though, that is a separate matter. Black Kite

  10:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(

canvassing before. Posting neutrally worded invites to editors has been found acceptable even when done on a larger scale, as long as there is no intent to sway people to a certain position / point of view. That position may exist if one makes the connection ARS => inclusionist "cabal" => mass-keep-!voting on AFDs but that connection is not in the message and thus we cannot say ikip does that to create an inclusionist "cabal" or to change !voting on AFDs. As Black Kite puts it very correctly: Advertising the existence of a project itself is not the problematic thing. To read a larger political intention in that message is one. Regards SoWhy

10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

These invites aren't neutrally worded, and only people of a stated point of view were solicited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is long-standing practice that invites are sent out to those people where you can expect they will be interested. I would not send a WikiProject Star Wars invite to someone I know likes Star Trek - that would be stupid. And all the invite really says is a.) that the user is likely to be interested in ARS and b.) what ARS does. Would you mind telling us how exactly that is not neutral? It does not say "ARS is an inclusionist 'cabal'", nor does it say "ARS is to spam AFDs with keep-!votes" or "ARS is to battle deletionism" or anything... No offense meant but I think you are reading something into the message that the message itself does not say. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad example; someone with a Star Trek template on their talk page is already interested in decade-old mainstream science fiction franchises with cult followings.

Why did Ikip choose self-declared inclusionists and only self-declared inclusionists? Why did he send only inclusionists a message saying "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? What shared visions do the people with the AIW and inclusionist userbox have besides inclusionism? He doesn't have to say "I want ARS to be an inclusionist project" outright when he tells inclusionists and only inclusionists that the project matches their vision of Wikipedia, and when the talk page has clearly slanted calls to various article standard discussions elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrast what Ikip did with advertising ARS to

WP:CSB members, with a mention of the FUTON bias. Or to whatever the music WP is, since bands and albums step up to the bat with two strikes against them if notability is even slightly unclear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops

) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of have to read between the lines. No one is going to be so stupid as to say "please join this project so we can disrupt the deletion process because we are all inclusionists who think notability is bad" If you are holding out for that, you might be waiting a while. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a bad idea to move this to a less visible venue which is going to naturally be inclined to defend any effort to advertise it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Black Kite 10:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm gunna go with SoWhy on this one. The invites themselves aren't canvassing, now if they start rolling around like the "Keep brigade" without actually adding references and proving notability, then there's a problem. But that bridge has not presented itself yet. –xeno (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno; it seems several editors here are second-guessing what other editors intend to do, and guessing that those intentions are bad. That seems to me the polar opposite of

WP:AGF. If there's a problem here, it's the lack of good faith being assumed by User:A Man In Black et al. Certainly no admin action required (yet). waggers (talk

) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Help me out, then. What's the good-faith reasoning for advertising a non-partisan project to (and only to) self-identified partisans of one side with the message "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? I admit I can't see it, but I came to

WP:AN because I believe I could be missing something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops

) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that group is more likely to join ARS than a group that self-identifies as one that wants to delete articles? Because he thought inclusionists are more likely to want to keep borderline notable articles by improving them? As we have already (see above) ruled out that he can't have done it to manipulate AFDs (because they are closed by strength of argument and not numbers), I don't see any good-faith reason to assume anything other than maybe an unclear writing style. It is quite sensible to believe that a project which attempts to rescue articles rather than to delete them might be more attractive to editors who have self-identified as willing to work on less-prominent topics and it is thus more logical to invite those users than all users. SoWhy 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"He canvassed inclusionists because canvassing deletionists is a dumb idea" is a false dilemma and based on false premises, although I suppose it makes for a good-faith misguided reason to advertise to that group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He's advertising to those most likely to join, in an attempt to drum up support for a project that ultimately improves articles and by extension, the encyclopedia. (Perhaps he will broaden his invite set at a later date, at this point, he's going for

low hanging fruit). I think there is no action required here unless the ARS starts canvassing eachother on actual deletion debates. –xeno (talk

) 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing in general is frowned upon. "Frowing upon" at wikipedia has all the deterent effort of frowning at your television. However, I see this as an attempt at a countermeasure to the typical bullying tactics employed by the deletionists, who I'm sure watch the AFD nominations pages with eager anticipation, so canvassing them would be redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And they sacrifice cats, too. Sheesh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now, the tools for that canvassing exist, for good-faith purposes. The project already has a template to add an AFDed article to a list of AFDs transcluded on the user or talk page of most of the project's members. That's why I have some qualms. A partisan Wikiproject isn't a big deal. A Wikiproject that keeps broadly-defined, criteria-less lists of borderline AFDs isn't a problem, as long as there's a reason for them to do so. A partisan project that keeps such lists is a problem, and it's much easier to head off efforts that would make that project more partisan than to close the barn doors afterward. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this isn't canvassing , "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." –xeno (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep reading down the page. I even use the same terminology as that page; I picked up "partisan" from the last time I re-read it in depth. This is a mass posting to self-declared partisans, and with an outlined possible negative effect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the invitations are not an invitation to participate in a community discussion, which is the crux of canvassing. –xeno (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. The invitations are to go to WP:RESCUE, on which there are several invitations to participate in community discussions, such as this. yandman 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If someone from the ARS setup a mailing list, or posted all over their "members" pages something along the lines of "Oh my God ... article

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The project has an automatic template for "Article

Foo

is at AFD, give it your attention" with no practical criteria for addition to this list. It is intended for use on user pages or talk pages, and any time an article is tagged for the attention of the project it is automatically linked from the user/talk page of everyone with this template.

This is why efforts that would make it a partisan project are problematic; if the project is Inclusionist Task Force, then this is automated partisan canvassing for borderline AFDs. (I realize I've shifted here from Ikip's intent to the effects of his actions, but both would be cause to end the advertising to people with partisan userboxes.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As unpopular as it might be right now, I would have to say I agree with AMIB's concerns. This is clearly

Talk

15:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was never notified about this thread; I stumbled upon it when I checked my Talk page history, and subsequently looked at Ikip's Talk page, since Ikip didn't sign his invite - all I got was four tilda's. Anyway, iit's good to know about the ARS, I think it can be a useful tool in building an encyclopedia if it results in consensus and improved articles, and I have no problem being "canvassed." Radiopathy (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, when I took a closer look at
  WP:CANVASS, there are some violations, and admin intervention, if any, should only focus on those, specifically, the issue of neutrality and "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages." I don't think vote stacking is an issue here, and I still don't consider this to be disruptive canvassing. Radiopathy (talk
  ) 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not needed. If anything we have a stunning assumption of bad faith here in a thread initially started by someone from the category of deletionists against someone who was once named "inclusionist." More unnecessary partisanship. Someone (Ikip) is trying to get more participation in a project that seeks to improve articles. Aren't we here to do that, i.e. improve articles? Isn't that the whole point? Now, granted not all members will actually work to improve articles, but some like myself do and will. I for one would appreciate greater participation in those efforts as there are times where I am the only one doing the actual referencing and revising and my hope, like I believe Ikip's, is not to just get a bunch more keeps in AfDs, but rather to get help from those who are willing to actually work on the articles. If the end result is that articles nominated for deletion are actually improved, then what the heck? AfD is not about trying to win arguments and get articles deleted at all costs. Rather, it's about deleting those for which improvement cannot happen. As such nominators should not be bent on seeing it deleted, but should be happy and open-minded when their concerns are addressed and the article is saved. Thus, Ikip is taking a proactive and good faith effort to improve our project's content. He is being considerate to his fellow editors by notifying them of something that may be of interest to them and a way for them to help our project. That should be encouraged if anything. Calling the Article Rescue Squadron some kind of inclusionist tool would be akin to calling Articles for Deletion a deletionist tool. Why don't we assume good faith all around and get back to actually building an encyclopedia? Are we here to do that or play inclusionist versus deletionist war games? I'm hoping the former. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't inclusionist vs deletionist (for the record, I am neither). The issue is whether or not this user violated
    Talk
    17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I am of the opinion, based upon what I've read most people saying over the years, that the ovrewhelming majority of editors are neither. I espouse no "-ism" other than encyclopaedism, and I know that not I'm a lone voice in that regard.

      See also Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 17#Prominent inclusionists?. Ikip, previously Inclusionist, has been here before. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the above comments have lost sight of the basics of deletion policy. Deletion is a las resort, and it is always a good idea to try to improve an article. The effort will not always succeed. For more than half of what comes to Afd, it will not succeed, because the articles are unimprovable. People, as they get experience, will try on only the improvable ones. If the banner is used excessively, the effort will be wasted altogether. I do not consider everything on which the banner has been used as a good choice for improvement--but then, I've sometimes been wrong and seen something I think hopeless actually get sourced adequately. If there is concern that the project is being used wrong, then those with such concern should join to see it used better--I have sometimes joined projects I think are being too partisan in the effort to encourage objectivity.

As for notification about the project, the project was not hidden from people of different views. The banner was used, and anyone who follows afd must have been aware of it. It is fair to assume all people interested in deletion follow afd. I see it more of an appropriate challenge: OK, you say you're an inclusionist--let's see you do some actual work to improve articles.

As for notification about this thread, while it is policy that discussions here should be notified to those affected, going by deletionist/inclusionist userboxes, was ill-advised. But I do not think it serious, as AN/I is not subject to vote stacking the way Afd is. DGG (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick point - of what I was talking about further up - at least one of the users that was "recruited" to the ARS today has been through the list of tagged articles and !voted "Keep" on every single one except the two that are irredemably doomed. Most of the Keeps have non-rationales, the majority being "per above". He was obviously paying so much attention that he also !voted Keep on the wrong AfD for one article that had been closed since 2006. Now OK - most admins will ignore such !votes, but with the knowledge that you will be carted off to DRV if you so much as close any AfD which has numerous Keeps as Delete, then is it no wonder that there is an increasing tendency to go for the safe "No Consensus" option? Black Kite 19:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Butting in a bit late but I don't see a problem here. A self-declared inclusionist is someone who wants to save articles. The ARS is there to save articles from deletion. Makes perfect sense to me that an invitation to join ARS would be sent to inclusionists. Asking them to put their money where their mouth is - so to speak. It's not as if AfD is a vote (if it is, it shouldn't be) and, presumably, after the ARS has done with its referencing or editing, the result would be judged purely on its merits. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• However, if it results in editors - as I've pointed out just above your comment - blitzing AfD with Keep votes with poor or no rationales, and making no attempt to actually improve the articles, doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem? If people recruited this way actually follow the guidelines of the ARS, then that's great, but ... Black Kite 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oh boy, this is exactly what I did not want this to turn into. I posted a request about
  WP:CANVASSING, not a referendom on the ARS or an attempt to spark a debate about inclusionists and deletionists. I posted here in an attempt to get an immediate decision on what Ikip was doing was right or wrong and to have action taken against him while he was canvassing. It seemed like a clear-cut case. I didn't actually expect people to defend what I see as a major and blatant violation of the behavioural guidelines. I'm very disturbed that a large amount of users here are defending him just because they agree with his cause, even though his cause was never my issue, it was his behaviour. Themfromspace (talk
  ) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, back to what I said: he didn't need to make reference to inclusionists in his tag, and should not have "personalized" each one - or mine, at least - with the editor's user name. Bring him up to speed on policy with regard to the actual hard issues. Just because I'm not outraged by what this editor has done doesn't imply that I'm defending him; I'm assuming good faith with respect to getting articles improved and don't anticipate (or anticipate participating in) "Keep spamming." Radiopathy (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is a bit unfair. I do have a slight philosophical inclination toward keeping articles but I'm hardly an inclusionist. Practically the only admin things I've done is to delete lots of articles! However, I can't really see a bias here. Inclusionists are the natural population for members of the ARS and inviting them to join is only natural. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm calling you out. Either prove that ARS exists specifically to spam keeps or stop posting about it. I expect better than crappy straw man arguments. Jtrainor (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Did I say that? No. In fact I specifically said that if people followed the ARS guidelines then that would not be the case. However, did I say that there was a danger that this could happen? Yes. Did I point out that one editor had done exactly that today? Yes. So, your point is? Black Kite 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who are arguing that all projects do this should consider that the template used is not like those from other projects. The problem is with the current wording of the template that is being used:-

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron . Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

If this was changed to:-

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron . Rescue Squadron members are focused on rapidly improving articles that have been nominated for deletion, saving articles that might otherwise be lost forever. ~~~~

it would be similar to those used by other projects and quite acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, Thank you. This is a good suggestion which I am doing now, I have begun the arduious task of changing all of the postings, along with grammatical errors,Thanks User:TimVickers and confusing links. [5]

As I mentioned, way, way, way above, I added "Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." because of a suggestion from

talk

) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...but to not be in conflict with the "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages" clause at
  WP:CANVASS, delete all the code between the brackets after "Hello" - then it complies! I agree, even as an "inclusionist" who got the invite, that the template in its original form goes over the edge in several areas. Radiopathy (talk
  ) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. Importantly, it's saving articles "from deletion", not saving articles "for deletion" (which is nonsensical), I also tried to emphasize that people need to edit the article, not just turn up and vote at the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no harm in inviting someone to consider participating in a project. Besides, I have not seen any evidence of Ikip's actions resulting in a mad stampede for ARS membership.

talk

) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ARS membership increased from 134 to 164 (roughly, Ikip and perhaps others forgot to sign-in previously) since Ikip started his recruitment drive. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this certainly got political quickly. Still, all the more reason why an organization like ARS should be more broadly advertised - if allegations of cabals and partisanship are being thrown about, much better to do it in the open with wide participation that in small groups on notice boards. MalikCarr (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CANVASSing to me. Ikip needs to stop entirely. Further, the implication by Ikip, and the entire ARS, that only Inclusionists believe in improving articles, or that Deletionists ONLY hang out on AfD, are both idiotic notions. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should be encouraged and applauded for his friendly effort to inform his fellow editors of a project that may interest them and allow them to help build our project. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a partisan group for us deletionists to join? purely to discuss knitting patterns and the like. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's AfD. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean New Page Patrol  ;-) Catch'em when they're young! (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting my finger on the problem

My problem with Ikip's solicitation is that he recruited people to a project that should not be about partisan rhetoric, based on the fact that they had partisan rhetoric on their user pages. Admittedly, this is based on my feeling that [inclusion][deletion]ist is partisan rhetoric. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded.

WP:CANVASS

reads "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive."

Now, in choosing to select only "inclusionist" editors to send the template to, he is trying moreso to influence the outcome than to improve the quality. Inclusionist editors are more likely to vote "keep" at an AfD. As has been pointed out already, editors from the ARS routinely vote "keep" at AfDs even when they haven't helped the article out at all

There's a table on

WP:CANVASS. Once again, this is a problem only with his behaviour, and is not meant to be about the ARS, nor about inclusionists and deletionists. Themfromspace (talk

) 05:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Read

WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." ARS is not a community discussion but a project, so the whole point is moot. The assumption that this will lead to more keep !votes in AFDs is just that, an assumption, as is the idea that this will influence admins to start counting !votes instead of judging by strength of argument. So if this problem is a.) just assumed and b.) clearly not in the message, then we should tackle the problem if and when it arises (i.e. if XFDs are really manipulated) and you should really let it go here. It was concluded multiple times now that all these assumptions about possible discussion manipulation are just a "feeling" that cannot be found in the message itself. We have to assume good faith that this feeling is incorrect. SoWhy

08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be excessively literal here. This was problematic, but it was problematic in misguided good faith. The message about advertising neutrally, both in message and in people solicited, is relevant. It seems to have been learned Ikip's stopped advertising and is rephrasing the messages, and hopefully nothing like this will happen again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me recopy what I wrote above:

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace (the person who created this complaint) is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at talk ) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this very same WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron . Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. ~~~~

Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages.

AMIB has in the past couple of weeks attempted to:

1. demote
   WP:PRESERVE
   , which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
2. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
3. Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue

These tedious, baseless attacks are getting really old.

AMIBs own extreme bias is clear:

"On

cruft: When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". (emphasis my own).[7]

Did't you used to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion before AMIB?

Several editors have attempted to close this ANI. Black Kite even moved it to the WP:ARS talk page, but AMIB, determined to beat a dead horse, reverted this. I suggest AMIB read: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and spend more times contributing to articles, instead of wikilayering ad nauseam.

UNININVOLVED THIRD PARTY >>PLEASE<< CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION

talk

) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you really need to work on that temper. On another note, you yourself have just pointed out the problem here. Wikiproject Spam invites were sent to editors who have reverted spam, therefore equating Wikiproject Spam with reverting spam. Seems logical, no? You sent WP:RESCUE invites to editors who have declared they are "inclusionists". Therefore, you equated Wikiproject Rescue with being inclusionist, i.e. trying to redefine what that project is about. Add to this the fact that under your previous incarnation you attempted to merge WP:Rescue with WP:Inclusionists, i.e. the same thing only more blatantly, and AMIB has good reason to be worried. yandman 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think administrator SoWhy said it best:

What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote.

AMIB has good reason to be worried. Just like AMIB is worried that the {{rescue}} template is canvassing? There is a fine line between concern and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

As I also mentioned above, there is absolutly no rule broken by adding one of those 260 templates inviting a user to join a group simply because they have an inclination towards cleaning up spam, or an interest in Africa, or an interst in the Falklands War. The same goes for adding a template on an editor's page who seems to have an inclination towards saving information.

I kindly request that a third party close this discussion.

talk

) 16:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As somebody who has received that invitation, I do not find it uninvited, nor do I feel it to be some kind of 'call to war'. I joined the group because I want to help rescue articles, and probably on a very casual basis. If anything is warlike, I find it to be the aggressive deletionism in which articles AND their histories are wiped out, before anybody is made aware of the issues. Tyciol (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Man. #1 and #2 are completely made up. In fact, I even came to your talk page for advice for rewriting

WP:PRESERVE

for elegance without changing its meaning. As for #3, it's is a misgiving I also expressed here, and connected with the spamming. This is more than a little sad.

I'm disappointed that Ikip hasn't learned any lesson here, that making things up and begging questions and hurling accusations in every direction are his substitutes for simply ceasing or amending problematic conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

← I don't have the time, energy or dedication to read through all of the preceding commentary, but I would like to echo what User:Tyciol, whom I do not know, said just above. I also was glad to be made aware of the Rescue Squad, because I agree with its aims, and share Tyciol's concern about aggressive deletionism. I have commented in favor of deleting articles from time to time - I support the concept of notability and do not want to see the encyclopedia's value diluted by nonsense or POV pushing - and always view each article, AfD or discussion on its own merits, not slavishly following a principle of inclusionism or any other. But I have seen a rush to delete based on a small coterie of opponents all too often, and find that trend troubling - very often the article in question is wholly save-able. The aim of the rescue squad, it seems to me, is to do just that - improve articles and rescue them from oblivion. It is implicit that they be worthy of rescue. All Ikip did, by bringing this group to the attention of like-minded people, is to let us know that there is an active ongoing project dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia. This was not canvassing in any way, shape or form - no one has asked me to weigh in on any AfD as a result of this invitation - and I suspect that accusation was a form of forum-shopping designed to address something entirely separate. When I was invited to join the Beatles project I didn't think I was being recruited to some kind of army, and although sometimes the discussions there veer in that direction, overall it was a helpful advisory to me that such a project existed. The same is true for the Article Rescue Squad, and these accusations seem absurd on the face of it. Tvoz/talk 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to where most current readers would be. Giggles4U (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder here, AMIB has yet to show any actual violations of policy. Close thread.

AMIB, if you actually think something's wrong here, take it to RFC rather than rabbble-rousing. We have procedures for this kind of thing, procedures which you should follow instead of trying to start a lynch mob. Jtrainor (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.