Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13

• This is a rather idealistic view of the AfD process and in reality it doesn't work that way. The Article Rescue Squadron don't have perfect judgment and quite frequently claim their sources demonstrate notability when in fact they don't (because the sources offer only trivial coverage of the subject, aren't independent of the subject, aren't reliable, etc). In these cases if lots of ARS partipants have voted Keep at the AfD then it's rather hard for the closing admin to justify closing the debate as Delete unless lots of other editors have shown up and concluded that the sources don't demonstrate notability, which doesn't always happen. Hut 8.5 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am quite familiar with AfD and how it works thank you. An AfD can often be the impetus for improving an article and I find many of the comments about the folks at ARS seriously lacking in good faith. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From my experience the tag has only ever been used for vote stacking purposes. The AFD process is already biased in favor of keeping bad articles as it is (no consensus always equals keep) and the sole purpose of this tag is to bring the attention of people who want to keep every article they can. This is
  WP:TAGTEAMing. DreamGuy (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - we are all looking to save notable articles - no need for this misused template. Youreallycan 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - many times an AfD becomes an impetus to improve the article in question. I won't comment on the relative merits of that situation, but generally speaking, the improvement of the article comes from users doing research on the topic and finding sources. Conversely, the rescue template seems to lead to a chorus of keeps with little to no support for those positions, and no improvement of the article by those users. Therefore, it would seem to me that the while the rationale behind the template is generally "good", its use in practice is not; the result is, invariably, kept articles with no improvement, leading to later renomination for not meeting criteria. We shouldn't be creating bureaucracy, and that is what the template usage engenders. If an article should be kept, it does not need a template to prove that or draw people to do that. The Squad can do its job without the aid of the template, and if the Squad does not or cannot follow through, it should not create the problem that it so plainly does with the template. MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template Here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Boris put it interestingly, as have others. This is being inappropriately used in articles and is redundant to the AfD tag that is normal. It does seem that the whole intent is to draw keep-minded editors to deletion discussions, which is very wrong. Alarbus (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn with fire (delete) the ARS is canvasing at its best. I have rarely seen any real work on the articles that were tagged with this template. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If project members want to bring specific AfD's to the project's attention, they can list them on a project page, and note that on the AfD page, as, for example:
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.

  There's no need for mainspace "tagging", especially since the project has specified that the "tag" cannot be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike all the other tags people post on an article's page, this one isn't simply ignored, but actually serves a purpose. It says someone believes in it and things it can be helped, and provides an easy link on that page to a Google news, book, and scholar search. Dream Focus 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Arthur Rubin Bulwersator (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I read the flood of delete !votes as a indication that the community finally has lost patience with the manner in which this tag is used. The prior TfD discussion always brought up the point that the usage guidelines for the tag needed to be tightened, but this does not appear to have been taken to heart. I also would note that when this template was developed, AfD discussions ran only five days, and it was common to redirect or merge articles during the discussion - none of which is the case now. Still, I am moderately inclined to keep the tag, because used properly it attracts the attention of interested editors of the need to make timely improvements to an article before the 7-day period runs. The factor that has not been widely discussed here is the fact that an article may be renominated for deletion, while there is no real functional counterpart on the article preservation side. Yes, an article can be recreated, but without the revision history the benefits of prior collaboration are lost. The fact that the tag is in mainspace during the pendency of the AfD is to me simply a reflection of the limited opportunity to improve the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; regardless of what the template (and – indeed – the ARS itself) is meant to do, the actual effect is unfailingly a canvass for blind keep votes under the pretext that the article might be improved. My own anecdotal observations are that ARS involvement does not significantly cause articles to be improved – just increases the chances that it will be kept without significant improvements. — Coren ^(talk) 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't the overwhelming majority of articles tagged for rescue end up with references found in reliable sources posted on the AFD page? Can you post to examples of these alleged "blind keep votes"? Dream Focus 23:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could post many examples of your ARS canvassing and intercepting the sources you throw in the AFDs in the wrong way. Your comments in AFD usually shows a complete disregard to many policies and guidelines, most importantly

    WP:RS. Secret ^account 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Keep This template has never been harmful and never can be harmful. That it never has been harmful can be proven by the repeated challenges to the supporters of this TfD to list those articles which have been kept in the last year only by canvassing at the ARS page, and to demonstrate that this is the reason. This challenge has never been met. (That does not mean articles they !voted against, or would have !voted against or think should not have been kept, but those where the alleged lobbying activities of the ARS have made the difference to the result.) I conclude there are no such articles. If there are a few, which I have not yet seen demonstrated, I ask what proportion is it to the total number of articles kept and deleted at AfD? We delete there about 70 articles a day out of an average 100 nominated. If one wrong one gets kept, is this an appreciable error? (actually, I think the error is 5% of the kept articles should not be kept, and 10% of the deleting ones should not have been deleted; a few years ago, I think it was twice that. Everyone will have a different figure, but how much of this is due to the ARS?
  That it never can be harmful is shown by the fact that , as with all such groups, membership is open to anyone. If they think it nominates mainly articles that need deletion, why have they not been going to the AfD and saying so? Lobbying as generally diffused as the ARS banner can never have an effect here, because the entire community can see it. Is the ARS alleged to run a secret list mobilizing supporters that only they can see? That would be improper, as is every secret list of this sort.
  Certainly there have always been a few people foolishly making non policy based !keep votes, or !keep votes without an explanation. There have also always been a few people foolishly making non policy based !delete votes, or !delete votes without an explanation. I think the second group is several times the former, but what does the ARS have to do with it? They can all do so anyway on both sides, and probably will.
  So what is the motive of this nomination? A desire that more articles be deleted rather than improved, or a attack to try to demoralize their opposition. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- you say membership is open to all, but that's not really true, is it? The ARS is effectively an inclusionists-only club and is very hostile to anyone who isn't. I remember when one editor used the rescue template to find a bunch AfD discussions and then didn't vote keep on the majority of them; that editor was immediately attacked, accused of bad faith and dragged to ANI, and the ARS went so far as to abuse rollback to remove his votes. This incident proves to me beyond any doubt that the ARS cannot tolerate any use of the rescue template other than securing keep votes. Reyk _YO! 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? When did this happen? Kindly provide a link. I don't recall this ever happening to anyone. Dream Focus 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here you go. Reyk _YO! 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • SnottyWong(now called Scottywong) was an editor who previously went to all articles tagged for Rescue and almost always found a reason to vote delete, insult various ARS members, and argue constantly his belief that ARS was inclusionist canvassing. He even had an infobox he made which said what he was doing. "This user attempts to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them." [1] An administrator decided to roll back what he saw as someone not sincerely participating in the AFD process, but just stalking the ARS and voting delete everywhere they tagged. That issue went to ANI without much notice apparently, few people discussing the matter at all, and it not involving most of the ARS regulars. Dream Focus 10:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not how I read that ANI at all. I see consensus, on the linked discussion, that A) the userbox was disruptive, B) the AFD !votes were perfectly valid and policy-based (i.e. reasonable), and C) the admin abused his tools. I don't understand how you can read it any other way, to be honest. --NYKevin @313, i.e. 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw another ARS admin giving the same defense at ANI. Yes, people will still make baseless keep votes on AfDs and there really is no stopping that, but this tag clearly serves to focus and coordinate the efforts of those editors on specific articles, as opposed to having them pour over the AfD logs to find a random article they think should be kept. Suggesting it does not facilitate the canvassing of inclusionists is being disingenuous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are exactly wrong, it DOES harm the project it creates an unnecessarily adversarial feeling to AfD which is not conducive to a collaborative project. VERTott 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think deleting things without a valid reason, insulting the work of those that worked on the article they are trying to destroy, and making insults against the ARS because people that disagree with you show up at AFD where you vote delete, would not be conductive to a collaborative project. That's what normally happens. Dream Focus 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise DGG hit it right on the nose. Voting to delete this template because it makes deletion inconvenient is down right shameful. CallawayRox (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with limitations. I agree with DGG the template has never been harmful to the project. Many articles has been rescued from otherwise certain deletion using the ARS. The issue with the template is that it's been so abused by a selective number of users that it gotten to the point that the community is expressing outrage on the ARS and the template. These few users usually throw about any source about the subject with a complete disregard of Wikipedia knowledge to show a personal agenda, and many of the editors and administrators who are relative novices to AFDs get fooled with their misleading comments. The solution is to ban the worst offenders from deletion discussions and from using the template.By banning or restricted the worst violators, the people who does try to rescue articles from deletion in good faith, and following proper Wikipedia guidelines can work in relative peace. Secret ^account 02:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete telling from this wikilawyering by some of the participants in this TFD, I think it's better off to delete it to avoid more trouble in the future. Secret ^account 17:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secret, your initial keep is a farse. I have been around long enough to know exactly which way someone will !vote in a deletion discussion before they vote. This is like me saying "Delete. I agree with Fram the template has always harmful to the project." then turning around and saying "Keep telling from this wikilawyering by some of the participants in this TFD, I think this TfD should be closed." what a joke. No veteran editor would believe it if I did this, and no one should take at face value your sudden turn of heart. Okip 23:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There is absolutely no policy or guideline which says that it is unhelpful to bring articles that may be suitable for the encyclopedia to the attention of others. If we are allowed to prominently advertise a nominator's choice to AFD an article, we are equally allowed as a community to advertise the opinion that it should be rescued. Steven Walling • talk 04:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there actually is a relevant guideline (

WP:CANVAS guideline. —SW— ^soliloquize 01:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a few comments above, there is a AN/I where you voted delete on the whole ARS list. Take your "select few" BS somewhere else. CallawayRox (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get uncivil. By the way, the incident you describe happened years ago, and I actually voted keep on a few of the AfD's in question. I think my comments above are perfectly clear, so I'm going to refrain from trying to clarify them. —SW— ^converse 05:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I like to think of myself as one of those good examples of how the ARS does work. Regarding the list of rescues I have on my user page, every single one of them was improved with references and other information at AfD, which led to them being kept. If there are individual issues of canvassing or alleged canvassing, then deal with them individually, but trying to get rid of the project's main use template is disruptive for those of us who properly embody the purpose of the ARS. Silverseren^C 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many of the above keep votes strongly remind me of some of the
  is very good for the project in this context. That this is borderline canvassing (if you disagree with that assertion, just look at the number of !votes which disagree with you. I think "borderline" is fair.) doesn't help anything either. This isn't a !vote since I've already made one. --NYKevin @350, i.e. 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Colonel Warden's replies to Hut 8.5, per Feydhuxtable's and WR Reader's battleground mentality, because of the canvassing effect the tag has, and because in reality no more articles are "rescued" since we have that tag (and the ARS), than before it existed. Yes, they sometimes result in keeping articles incorrectly nominated for deletion. The same happened, in a much less confrontational and divisional way, before the tag (and the ARS) existed. So it has no actual benefit over the situation where it didn't exist, and serves to divide the community and make people distrust their opinions and their reason for being at an AfD.
  Fram (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If squad members brought a battleground mentality to this project you guys would know about it. Pretty much by definition inclusionists are respectful of other people and their work, and we try to remain gentle and restrained even under extreme provocation. The root cause of any perceived conflict is deletionists who insist on trying to destroy interesting and useful work. The obsession some of the more extreme deletionists have with trying to stifle and even permaban our most constructive members doesn't help either. Please don't use pejorative terms to describe those who noblely try to defend encyclopaedic standards and a welcoming diverse environment for newbies! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do know about it. It's being highlighted in this very discussion. For example, Colonel Warden said "...self-selected cabal to overwhelm a broad mass of new editors by defeating them in detail. The ARS is a good corrective to this pattern..." ARS members see themselves as in some kind of war against deletionists and they require a headquarters to coordinate their counter offensive against the war mongering deletionists.--v/r - TP 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a bad analogy to say we need headquarters, but per the ARS graphics its for peaceful and constructive civilian vehicles like trucks and estate cars. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First off, I was canvased off-wiki to come here and have my say on the expectation of a Keep vote, however they got it wrong. I think that this template and the way the project behave does harm the project, it makes AfD very adversarial, seen as a battle between two groups the "Neptunist" and "Plutonist" if you like. It does canvas support, the ARS might not like to call it that but it is a form of "Vote-banking". VERTott 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perceive this happening more than with other Wikiprojects? Sometimes its more obvious than others [2], but many Wikiprojects gather people like themselves, and then go around ganging up on articles they don't like, and eliminate them once they had numbers superior to anyone who might object, be it through merge/redirects without consensus, or by AFDs. We don't do that. Dream Focus 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "then go around ganging up on articles they don't like, and eliminate them once they had numbers superior to anyone who might object" - ^{[citation needed]} Bulwersator (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles about schools is a good current example. We have thousands of articles about schools written by a large number of editors. You then have a handful of fanatics who go from article to article trying to delete the ones that don't fit their preference. It seems quite common for a small, self-selected cabal to overwhelm a broad mass of new editors by defeating them in detail. The ARS is a good corrective to this pattern by providing technical expertise in matters such as sourcing and policy which assists the new and naive editor when their first faltering draft is pounced on Warden (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, main purpose of the template (admitted or not) is to make the article appear in a category monitored by users predisposed towards !voting "keep" at AFDs, irrespective of article merits. We have a whole raft of cleanup tags for articles needing improvement. Additionally, there is no consensus outside the project that the tag should not be removable. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it alright to remove the "whole raft of cleanup tags" which remain for years and are almost always just totally ignored? Those who don't like us, will remove our tag if allowed to. If the Rescue tag is allowed to exist, then it has to be allowed to be used, otherwise it'll just get removed constantly, and that the same as just deleting it. I think the real problem is editors who show up at AFDs predisposed towards !voting "delete" without follow

WP:BEFORE, not bothering to even click the Google news archive search and see if there are any sources about. Notable articles get deleted all the time because no one was around who bothered to even look for reliable sources that give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. "If the Rescue tag exists..." - if. Bulwersator (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Other stuff exist argument isn't relevant here. That's for articles. Totally different situation. Dream Focus 11:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality wikilawyering ("The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles.") Bulwersator (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be allowed to remove one tag you don't like, and not others? That was my point. I wasn't arguing we should exist because they do, I was focusing on the part about removing a tag to be disruptive. Dream Focus 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this is not only a problem of the rescue template. It is becoming clear to me that there is a basic flaw in the AfD procedure, and ARS exploits that flaw. The basic flaw is that "No concensus" defaults to "Keep", so inclusionists and ARS only need to push for a "no concensus" to get an article kept. This means they are not really working towards concensus (why would they?). If you look at AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street, then I see Dream just trying everything to disagree. Proposing to change the name of the article(as if that will make the topic notable), and when that doesn't work suggest that the delete voters are coming from an "I don't like it" attitude (where all delete voters are clearly making their case based on policy). This kind of "rescue activity" is only wasting editor's time and not making the AfD process more efficient. I see the same on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines. Northamerica added three sources, and when I pointed out issues with them he responded by moving one of the sources into external links. But , he doesn't address the issue of the two remaining sources being primary sources, or the argument that no list article is needed when you have only two sourced items to put into it. Just ends with the comment "still needs more work". Well, if they haven't found any reliable sources after 10 full days of rescue team 'working' on it, then wouldn't it make more sense to change their vote to "Delete" ? Makes me wonder: do these ARS members ever change their vote to "Delete"? Seems like that is a once in a blue moon event.

But this is to be expected as long as you have the no concensus defaulting to keep. More than a few admins will close an AfD as "no concensus" as soon as there is a significant number of Keep votes. And that's what some ARS members try to take advantage of. Concensus is not what the keep voters need. This problem will not go away by deleting the rescue template. I think the "no concensus" closing got to go. Then all editors will need to work to a concensus outcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What youre perhaps missing is the huge disparity between how easy it to destroy and how much hard work is needed to create. For all but the best of the best, writing to good article standard can take about an hour per sentence. You often need to research and read far more sources than you add to get NPOV, and even once you have good sources it can be a struggle to integrate to an article while complying with the conflicting demands of our guidelines on Plagiarism and Original Research. On the other hand it takes only a few seconds to put a whole article up for deletion, and several of the more extreme deletionists to precious little else but waltz round the encyclopedia trying to destroy others work. Constructive editors already have to work orders of magnitude harder than deletionists. I really hope youre having a laff with that comment. As a parody of deletionist insanity it would be brilliant :-) . FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are editors who "precious little else but waltz round the encyclopedia trying to destroy others work" then you should be asking for them to be banned from AfDs as this is disruptive. Especially if they are AfDing articles which are at GA. Meanwhle this is more likely to be a red herring - no, it's more than that looking at what you wrote again, it's a suggestion that 'deletionists' are not constructive editors, and presumably that 'inclusionists' are constructive editors. That of course does not reflect reality nor does such language aid this discussion.

talk) 12:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Doing as you suggest would cause much time wasting drama, hurt folks feelings for no good reason, and likely have no positive effect as they'd just make new accounts. Whats needed is an institutional change to make it harder for knowledge to be destroyed, so that this project can once again pursue it founding m:vision to collect all the worlds knowledge. With newbies being cherished and welcomed rather than derided as producers of crap. Realistically there seems little hope of creating community consensus for this. Happily, as the Foundation collect additional empirical evidence on the harm caused by the wrecking crew, there is always the chance they'll do the necessary. In the meantime this tag has clear and obvious benefits for improving the encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Out of context there. My comment was "If people are having trouble with the word "rumor" perhaps a different word could be used. Would calling it Misconceptions covered in the media related to Sesame Street make any difference?" Sometimes its just a certain word that people are bothered by, so I offered that suggestion. And with all the media coverage of every section in that article, obviously it should be kept. Dream Focus 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Dream as ever was being extremely patient and collegial in respectfully trying to find a workable compromise that all could agree on. Their faith in the possibility of deletionists seeing reason is admireable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable. How much work has gone in creating an article is never an argument for keeping or deleting.

@Dream. Maybe the ARS project should study the

WP:N

page a bit better. Having media coverage does NOT mean that an article should "obviously" be kept. First of all, the coverage needs to be "reliable" and "in depth". And if that is case, then we have to ask ourselves whether it needs a standalone article, or is better placed into an already existing article (merge or smerge). To quote form the WP:N page (about notable topics): "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page."

So, it is a bit more complicated than just finding coverage. The sesame street rumors (only 5 small paragraphs) would easily find a place in already existing articles, something that was pointed out by many editors, but is never addressed by any ARS member. Seems like you are just aiming for a "no concensus" by continuing to disagree. So, let me repeat my question: where are the examples of ARS members changing their vote from Keep to Delete, after their rescue tag has come on an article? If such examples are rare to find , then it supports my point that this project is rarely/never changing its mind and often just aiming at getting 'no concensus' closures on the article "it" has decided to keep. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I disagree with someone, I respond to what they said, just as others do to me. I'm not doing it to try to aim at getting a "no consensus" closure. And I, along with other ARS regulars, have in fact voted delete at times, including on articles tagged for Rescue. I even said delete on one article, and then after someone pointed out an error in my reasoning, I changed it to keep. [3] I'm not beyond reason. I don't just argue to get my way. I listen to others, I think about what they say, and I respond accordingly. And notice how in that example, once again, a certain ARS hater takes a jab at the ARS and makes a ridiculous accusation. Dream Focus 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any strikethrough indicating you changed your vote there. And I was asking for a change from Keep to Delete (not the other way round). Anyway, do you agree that articles are not kept just because there is coverage?

You voted keep on the Phillipines weather directory list article. Why don't you come change your vote to Delete now that your rescue team has only come up with two primary sources after 10 days? I suppose you agree that primary sources are not sufficient to prove notability? And I suppose you agree that having two or three poorly sourced items is not enough to create a "list" article for them?

I have nothing against the idea of a rescue team as such, but if their rescue efforts have not found anything after 10 days, then wouldn't it be logical for them to come and change the Keep votes they piled on from day 1? I would expect people who are engaged in rescue to follow up a bit on the articles they have tagged. But most of them are never seen again after they voted. That doesn't even look good to editors who are more neutral in keep/delete matters.. This could well be one of the reasons why AfD discussions have had declining participation. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it at [4]. I believe I changed from keep to delete before, but nothing comes to mind straight away. I do read the sources and the cases presented. And the weather discussion doesn't need to be dragged here. A list article is fine if some of the items on it get news coverage. Consensus on what entries should be there or not, and by what criteria, can be discussed on the talk page. Dream Focus 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dragging the weather discussion here. I am just using it to make the point clear, and asking why nobody of the rescue team is coming back to change their vote to Delete after their project has not found independent sources within 10 days? So, if ARS finds nothing to support the article, they don't care and let their Keep votes be? That's good to know. So, and do you agree that articles are not kept just because there is coverage? Do you agree that two items is not enough to create a list article? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see four people saying keep, and only two of us are ARS. I've never seen the other two names before at all, they finding their way there by other means. Three people agree with the nominator and say delete, all making the rather unconvincing NOT DIR argument. I see nothing wrong with a list article that has blue links to other Wikipedia articles, or list other entries that are notable. If you wish to discuss the inclusion criteria of what goes on the list, you can do so on the talk page. Talk:List of weather websites in the Philippines#Inclusion criteria Don't get upset that people weren't swayed over by your argument enough to change their vote. Dream Focus 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines. Perhaps matters regarding this particular article should be discussed at its AfD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2

• Comment. I think everyone here - editors recommending Keep and Delete alike - needs to take a step back, have a nice cup of tea, and re-read
  WP:AGF. It feels like a goddamn arbcom case in here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I agree. If you cannot follow
  WP:CIVIL. (It turns out those are the same place!)--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All very nice on paper. But when does good faith become blind faith? Throughout this discussion, people who nominate articles for deletion have repeatedly been branded "evil", "pathological", "destructive" and so on... We should just be nice and continue to assume good faith, then? There is a point where this becomes denial, and I don't want to be in denial. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify its only yourself and one of the delete voters who have used the word evil here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read your own contributions if you want. You have been using terms like pathology and destroy/destructive all the time. No need to blame me for it. Here are a few diffs: [5] , [6] , [7]. At the same time you are trying to tell us that inclusionists are by definition "respectful" of other people and their work: [8]. That gives a whole new meaning to the word respectful. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has its limits, as a hypothetical we ought not to respect the work of a torturer, nor should we respect "work" that involves needlessly destroying interesting and useful articles which others have laboured to build up. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd, this really isn't helping your case; you personally have, just now, practically proven the existence of a

WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which this template (and arguably the ARS as a whole) promotes. --NYKevin @306, i.e. 06:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well yes, and now people who disagree with the current workings of ARS are being compared to "torturer". Maybe my understanding of English is poor , but is the use of the name "squadron" in itself not already evidence of a battleground mentality? Squadron is a military term, isn't it? I think their name should be changed to "article rescue team" or "article rescue project" to give it a more cooperative tone. We cannot complain about battleground mentality when there are "squadrons" going round on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ones comparing delete voters to torturers, or saying theyre pathological as individuals. Its the excessive orientation towards deletionism thats pathological, something that seems to have affected much of the community. The ARS are an essential countervailing influence, thanks to the beneficial effects of this template. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was entirely predictable, given the subject matter. What we're seeing here are the exact same tactics that (some) ARS folk deploy in most AfDs; a full-frontal assault on nearly everyone that weighs in for deletion, hoping to push the discussion to such dizzying lengths that they land the "no consensus, default to keep" close. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the result would be

WP:TLDR. Still, the statement that it cannot be removed until the AfD closes may make it a {{db-policy}} violation. We went through this before, and there was no consensus that it was consistent with policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• That's a straw man. What the template actually says is "Please leave this tag in place until the discussion has closed." That is not a command — it is a polite request. It is similar to our common convention that comments in AFD discussions are left alone by other editors. Sometimes there are exceptions but it is usually uncontroversial and, as an established practise, represents our general policy. That's what policy is - something which we customarily do. Warden (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. Dream Focus's comments in that thread are illustrative of actual practice, not the wording of the template. Horologium (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is illuminating. Apparently the instructions on the template are just suggestions for the ARS but binding laws for everyone else. Why should the Arrogant Ruleslawyer Squadron be allowed to impose these blatantly self-serving rules on the entire Wikipedia community when they consider anything that requires forethought and responsibility from them to be just a "polite request"? Reyk _YO! 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Tarc, what are you talking about? First off, articles usually end in Keep or delete, and for those tagged for ARS keep more often. You can see recent stats at [9] We certainly don't have any tactic. You on the other hand regularly take a swipe at the ARS when you come across us in any AFD. Dream Focus 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I take swipes because I view you as a net negative to this project. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Straightforward keep, because no one has yet to present any actual reason for deletion. The delete votes range from incoherent jibberjabber to typical handwaving. On this of all days we should not be trying to stifle human knowledge and progress. Let's not dishonor of the memory of Dr. King in that manner. If anything, don't just keep this template, but use it to replace the disgusting, divisive, etc. Afd template, which can safely be deleted and that we see stinking up the place all too often (Redacted) --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The deletion reasons have called the ARS out for using it to canvass keep votes, noted that it is unfair for one wikiproject to advertise itself in article-space, that it is redundant to the AfD template. It is a bit shady to simply dismiss arguments that one either cannot or will not counter as jibberjabber" or "typical handwaving". None one of the ARS crowd has been able to answer just why they need a template out on the article itself, when a categorization/sorting of the AfD would suffice. Also, invoking King to save a template is beyond reprehensible. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in the keep side, but your

  personal attack on the delete voters, The Bachmann Editor Overdrive, is very unhelpful. That kind of votes makes me think there's an unfixable battleground mentality with certain members of the group. Secret ^account 20:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I have a bit of difficulty taking TBEO seriously, I'd like to Agf, but I think he/she is more or less just expressing irritation about the deletion of an article about a relative of our future vice-president. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useful for nothing but canvassing. Prodego ^talk 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per TechnoSymbiosis, Reyk, Hut 8.5, and fluffernutter, among other good arguments above. This has always been a problematic template and has been effectively used as a canvassing tool far more often than it has been used to effectively source articles. The template does not help AfD, on the contrary it inflames the battles that take place there and encourages the "us versus them" mentality that pervades every discussion focusing on the ARS (including, of course, this one). When I participated regularly at AfD I found the articles tagged with this to be the among the most intense battlegrounds of Wikilawyering and needless drama, and the articles under discussion usually benefited little from the hassle. Removing this tag would stop needless canvassing and temper the drama that makes AfD such a stressful place to volunteer. ThemFromSpace 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this template notifies user that at least one wikipedian cares about the article. It helps drawing people to gathering sources. At least one of my AfD nominations was kept due to the several sources thrown in by people coming over such template. I would consider the arguments of nominator (of this TfD) as a discontent about being unable to
  game the system by closing AfDs with delete result without proper discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as nothing has changed since the prior discussion. If there has been actual canvassing (and not inneundo, supposition, or perception thereof), then
  WP:AGF, and serves no purpose that will improve the project. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually, the AFD was filed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), who is probably the most enthusiastic employer of this template, and one of its indefatigable supporters. You may disagree with the rationales provided, but you yourself are failing to assume good faith by attacking those who are participating in a discussion initiated by a member of the Article Rescue Squadron. Horologium (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, although I’ve weighed in above with my Keep argument already, having reviewed the entirety of this discussion many times, I think there’s more to think about than just the ARS tag.
  WP:CANVASS
  has been invoked by many in the above discussion and I believe it, not the ARS tag, is at the root of this contention. The following are three excerpts of policy, guidelines and an explicit comment from the AfD talk page:

From: WP:CANVASS: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour.

From WP:CONSENSUS: Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter

From:WT:Articles for Deletion WP:BEFORE is not a policy or even a guideline. There are several good reasons why it's not, and why bringing it up in an AfD debate is usually a crap argument. Firstly, it reverses the burden of evidence; I've seen "arguments" along the lines of "Keep- nominator hasn't explained how they followed BEFORE". But it's not up to the nominator to jump through hoops, it's up to the people defending the article to find the material that justifies it.

If one examines these three excerpts from the perspective of the Keeps and Deletes in this discussion one might make these interpretations:

• The Keeps might say: The ARS tag contributes to: improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus

  The Deletes might say: The ARS tag results in the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.

  The Keeps might say: The ARS tag is consistent with: While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments

  The Deletes might say: The ARS tag results in it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter.

  Then from the

  WT:Articles for Deletion

  comment above one can deduce the following: ‘’The editor who nominates an article for deletion has no obligation to improve the article, and can explicitly put the burden on others to improve it, but in no way can anyone explicitly call attention to the improvements needed or generate editor support to actually improve the article, because that would bias the discussion and thus would be disruptive.

• If our goal is to Build the encyclopedia and we want to continue to do it through real consensus, then we need to take a very critical look at how

  WP:CANVASS is written and invoked. This discussion is a clear indication that it’s not serving us well today.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Excellent point Mike, the improvement of content ought to be one of our top priorities. Sounds like at a minimum we ought to amend WP:CANVASS to explicitly exempt this template. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think the result of this discussion can, will, or shall be to ascribe the rescue tag more exemptions and special exceptions than it already has. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with but in no way can anyone explicitly call attention to the improvements needed or generate editor support to actually improve the article. I think posting it to an Afd is doing that. Anyone who wants to improve articles should just look at the list of Afds. It doesn't need a specific template that calls attention to only certain articles. A wikiproject tag should not be in mainspace to boot. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 800 articles put up to AfD in a week. Usually ~120 per day. Now, what are the odds of someone finding a article that is on a notable topic, yet has major issues. No one goes through all 120 nominations every day, trying to find an article to fix. I don't know of any editors who would have time for that. The point of the Article Rescue Squadron is to have a team of editors who regularly participate at AfD, who go through some of the articles, and attempt to improve articles they feel may meet the notability guidelines. Now, they may not be able to fix all of the issues on their own. Which is why there is a rescue template, to attract other editors to the article so that the issues may be addressed. Yes, it also attracts editors that don't improve articles, but overall the project does a good job in improving articles. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take that long to skim 120 articles to determine if a subject is close enough to notable to be saved. As for if the project does a good job that is up for debate. I personally haven't seen a single article that ARS members have piled onto improved in any significant way. Saying that I am sure there are some that are, but I haven't really ever seen one, usually I just see a lot of per X keeps and refusal to change from keep to delete when its been proved a subject isn't notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't take that long to skim 120 articles to determine if a subject is close enough to notable to be saved." It does if you're not doing it wrong. " I personally haven't seen a single article that ARS members have piled onto improved in any significant way." Well, for you, I'm sure it won't take long to skim my 15,000+ plus contributions to find a few.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso, I am surprised that you actually missed my point. If it is not the responsibility of the editor nominating an article for deletion to improve the article if possible, and that responsibility lies elsewhere, but any attempt (regardless of methodology) to solicit improvement from other editors is frowned upon in the name of

WP:CANVASS because it would bias the deletion discussion, we have a problem. What your really advocating is that any improvement to an article once it is in AfD ought to be accidental and that any methodology that actually results in improvements to an article are inherently detrimental to the goals of the deletion process.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Not at all. What I am saying is that there doesn't need to be two ways of asking for help. That the actual listing of the Afd is essentially stating that this article either needs help or needs to be deleted. Using a second tag to specifically target editors on one extreme of the deletion/inclusion debate is detrimental as it is likely to lead (and by all accounts has led) to simple vote stacking instead of any actual improvement to the article, because who needs to improve the article if you can just stack the votes to stop its deletion. A centralized place to list pages that are up for deletion is great....except we already have one called Afd. Anyone that wants to improve and save articles can easily go check for them there. Also I think the nom should at least try to follow

WP:BEFORE as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Mike, I think you are the one missing the point. This tag is specifically for drawing attention to articles facing deletion. It does this by saying the article is in need of "rescue" and strongly implies the article should not be deleted, encouraging members to "save" the article. Clearly the effect is more likely going to be a flood of keep votes than any noteworthy improvement to articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making an assumption Clearly the effect is more likely going to be a flood of keep votes than any noteworthy improvement to articles that as far as I can tell, is completely unsupported by any empirical evidence. Its what you want to believe because it supports the tactical goals of deletion, not the strategic goals of building the encyclopedia. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you presume I am a deletionist just because I see something wrong with the template. I looked at quite a few of the articles that have been "rescued" and saw that quite a few had seen little to no improvement since being "rescued" so they would probably still be candidates for deletion. I am not the only one who has noticed that the "improvements" ARS makes in response to this tag are often on the surface, with their most significant activities to "rescue" an article being to vote keep. Certainly there are some articles that should be kept that are deleted just as there are articles that should be deleted but are kept. Then there are those that should be merged or redirected. Why I have a problem with this tag is that it appears to mostly serve as a way for inclusionists to canvass deletion discussions, gaming the process of consensus-building that Wikipedia depends on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Djsasso, I think it’s reasonably lame to characterize AfD as a good methodology for asking for help to improve an article because it puts priority on deletion, not improvement. Just for grins, what if there was no ARS tag, but instead all AfDs were trancluded to the ARS project pages so that once an article hit AfD, ARS members could then go out and solicit help from other editors and projects to improve the articles that could and should be improved—ie. add sources, demonstrate notability, etc. And that’s all they did, improve articles at AfD. They never weighed-in with Keep votes at the Afd, nor did any of the other editors that worked to improve the article weigh-in at Afd. The majority of the votes at AfD would be delete and the article would be deleted. Any energy spent improving the article would be wasted. If an AfD nom has no responsibility to improve an article, and those that do improve the article can’t weigh-in because their keep votes bias the discussion, who defends the improvements made to the article. In my experience at AfD, noms rarely care about improvements and generally fight any efforts to reconsider deletion, even once an article is improved.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike - I have provided six recent AFDs and a list of use of the rescue tag that show an effort to canvass. The evidence was rejected by the ARS. If you cannot accept the arguments presented to you, it is impossible to discuss with you.--v/r - TP 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Its not the arguments here that are in question, its the wording of

WP:CANVASS that makes this discussion problematic. So when you are saying the ARS is canvassing are you saying? The ARS is trying to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus (That's the 1st sentence in CANVASS) or are you saying ARS has the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. (That's the second sentance in CANVASS)? Difficult distinction isn't it. There is good canvassing and there is bad canvassing and the guideline encourages the good and discourages the bad. But which applies to ARS? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm saying the intention of the project is your first description but the method and means are the second. Specifically "Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."--v/r - TP 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to characterize what you’ve just said (as I interpret it) it would be this way: ARS we applaud what your trying to do to improve the encyclopedia and build consensus around articles up for deletion, but we also are going to do everything in our power to handcuff your ability to do it because we don’t and won’t endorse your methods no matter how collaborative they might be. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be reading it half right. I'd put it like this "ARS we applaud what your trying to do to improve the encyclopedia and build consensus around articles up for deletion, but we expect you to follow the same rules everyone else has to live by."--v/r - TP 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with ARS members trying to improve the article and voting keep. The problem is that that almost never happens. This tag is almost exclusively used to canvass and rarely to improve. If the project could keep a reign on their blind keep tendencies then there probably wouldn't be the reaction to this template that there is. Heck I would be first in line to say keep if it were ever used in the "ideal" way that many of the keep people here think it is used but reality says it is rarely used that way. As such something needs to be done, the easiest and probably best solution is to remove the tool being used to canvass inappropriately. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument of articles being "improved" (or not) as a result of the rescue tag is a moot point. AfD is not about improving articles, it is about pondering the question whether the topic is notable enough for inclusion in wp, AND if so, whether it needs a standalone article or not. Even a very bad article consisting of only one line, will be kept if the topic is notable and worthy of a standalone article. Even the most improved and well written article will be deleted if the topic is not notable. That's just how it is, but many ARS members seem to disagree with that policy.

Actually it doesn't make much sense to work on improving an article if it is not sure that it will be kept. So logically, major improvements are typically made after an article is kept (or that's how it should be). Unfortunately that often doesn't happen, and if it happens it is usually because "wikify" or "copyedit" tags being put on it by other projects.

The normal AfD procedure is being disturbed by sudden flood of Keep votes coming in after the rescue tag comes on. That's what we saw in examples that have been cited. And I have seen no examples of ARS members changing their votes from Keep to Delete, even if no reliable sources are produced. Coming to a Delete concensus seems to be near impossible for them once their rescue tag is on it.

People who want to improve/rescue articles are not being stopped from doing so once that rescue template is gone. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mainly per the logistical issues (project with template in article space, rules against removing tag) as summarized by Fluffernutter and from personal first hand knowledge (as shown by Yaksar) of how this tag draws keep votes to AfDs. If members of the ARS were really concerned with improving articles, then they could: 1) find RS covering the topic, 2) write prose and improve the article, 3) cite the new prose with the sources found in step 1, and then 4) !vote keep on the AfD page, referencing the work they have done. Instead, the users of this tag seem to 1) add a half dozen purported sources to the AfD discussion, 2) tag the article, and 3) wait for other members of the ARS to !vote keep based on the sources found. The sources are never used to develop the article—the only purpose is to avoid deletion. In my own experience the sources are quite often borderline RS, but closing admins default to keep or no consensus based on the volume level of the ARS debaters. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should we also be nominating deletion of the AfD template since there are plenty of editors ignoring
  WP:BEGIN and nominating things without researching the topic? Of couse not. Per UltraExactZZ: "We don't delete a template simply because it is used improperly - we deal with the behavior that results in its misuse." Exactly (even ultra–exactly ). And per Xymmax: "used properly it attracts the attention of interested editors of the need to make timely improvements to an article before the 7-day period runs" Some sort of template like this is useful to seperate the articles worth saving from the shit articles that have no value. If this tempate's deleted, another one with similar function will soon take its place — just probably not in mainspace. How will that do anything to curtail any (mis–)use by the ARS? They'll just tag the AfD discussion or the article talk page. The only editors penalized would be the ones that are actually viewing the article and may genuinely have an interest in helping to fix it, and the AfD template gives them no guidance on how to proceed, while the rescue template does. Mojoworker (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Keep per User:Jclemens, User:MichaelQSchmidt, User:DGG, User:Secret, or in fact per everybody really. Now I am not looking to get people in trouble, but I have not edited in quite some time, but bafflingly (seriously, I edit articles on fish, what the heck does this have to do with FISH?!) I was approached off site by members of a group who is apparently coordinating the bulk if not all of the delete votes in this thread. They claim to belong to some

disruptive special interest group whose agenda can be found here. The message they are sending out is to get as many users as possible to show up to this discussion to go after their enemies, who they call "inclusionists". I have no idea why they would think I would join them in their "crusade" (was I contacted by accident?) and to be honest I really do not appreciate being contacted in such a manner. I am no snitch (YOU know who you are and can feel ashamed for yourself!), but a quick read over the comments in this discussion demonstrates who is really here to build an encyclopedia and who is part of this off-wikipedia organization bent on ruining Wikipedia in a manner consistent with that legislation the website is actually protesting by going dark tomorrow. One need only look at the vicious, hateful, and immature remarks by User:Reyk and User:Tarc, in particular, to see what the so-called Association of Deletionist Wikipedians are all about. What's especially comical is their attempts at being witty (for example) just fall flat. The hypocrisy of targetting this Article Rescue Squadron while maintaining a group with a stated agenda of deleting articles and while conducting an off-site campaign to get as many supporters here as they can is sickening. I really hope that whoever closes this discussion gives weight to actual arguments, because it is beyond apparent that some significant amount of the deletes are hypocritically coming from a coordinated off-site campaign or are just run of the mill trolling. If anyone really does have an issue with special groups using canvassing, then they better shut down that Deletionist group as well, because otherwise hypocrisy reigns supreme. At least these rescue people's goals seem to be about improving articles rather than limiting human knowledge arbitrarily. The combative nature of those saying to "burn the template with fire" as someone actually posted just further proves what they are about. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2012_January_13&diff=prev&oldid=471452259 here] and here, for example. Yeah, burning things was always what the real champions of history advocated... So, no I am not going to associate with those calling for "burning" and "killing" of things. Looking over other examples in this discussion, it looks like the rescue people are those who actually do the hard and real work of searching for sources and incorporating them into articles. What I am seeing here is people being miffed about being called out for their laziness to do that themselves or ignorance about whatever random topic they happen to personally not care about and so do not want Wikipedia to cover. If worse comes to worse, these rescue people improve the article. God forbid! Keeping this template seems to have potentially positive consequences, whereas deleting it is just giving into those want to lazily and ignorantly nominate things with as little opposition and embarrassment as possible. Merely having deletion discussions in the first place is what causes the so called battleground mentality. One article improvement group has no real effect on that and if anything they seem to either actually improve articles, which should be why we are here, or if they don't, well, just ignore them. No one makes anyone read any given post nor is anyone required to respond to and counter everything they disagree with. And please do not send me any more messages inviting me to discussions. Phew! Glad that's over. Thank you. --A Pocket Full of Sunshine 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, are you accusing me of being part of an off-wiki canvassing operation? Reyk _YO! 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you know what, your accusation of a large coordinated off-wiki operation is fairly serious. If you, a person who did a handful of fish-related edits back in 2010, were contacted regarding this discussion then it would have to be a pretty comprehensive operation. In other words, we should expect a lot more random editors to have been contacted. So where are they? I think you're full of something alright, but it ain't sunshine. But if your allegation is true, it would imply massive wrongdoing by a very large segment of the Wikipedia community and so I ought to do the responsible thing and call for anyone else who has been contacted this way to come forward to tell us just who's behind this shadowy conspiracy and how wide it goes. Reyk _YO! 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, since it now looks like someone is setting me up, I may as well clarify. The person who emailed me emailed an email account I have since disabled to avoid any additional disruption. He signed as "Your pal, User:EditorXXV, just a User:A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea..." Since this user, who it looks like has a history of impersonating others, is apparently buddies with Tarc who from checking Google seems to have a history of bad edits, I think it is pretty clear what is going on here. They contacted me and God knows who else that didn't fall for it to disrupt this discussion and make it about someone they have some kind of grudge against. So, that was the plan, huh? Find some random (well, or did you look for an account that looked just right for your manipulation?) old account you could set up? How many others have you done that to? You used just enough vitriol to get me here, probably figuring, "Hey, at worst we get another delete vote, if he agrees with us anyway, but if all goes as planned..." Well, hook line and sinker, eh? And no, Reyk was NOT mentioned in any email, so I do not know if he/she is part of this and I do not really feel like wasting the time to see if he/she is part of their Association of Deletionist Super Pac. Heck, from it looks like, he/she is a possible victim of their games as well. I mentioned that user in my previous edit because I noticed his/her language toward others being fairly childish/disrespectful and consistent with the other guy/gal's tortuous tongue. I'm interested in fish, so unless you want to talk fish, please don't drag me into these messes! Heck if anything, the whole blackout of Wikipedia could be reworded as what this discussion seems to be about: "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge. For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the Association of Deletionists is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more." And I'll leave it at that... --A Pocket Full of Sunshine 15:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are scores of admins reading this. Why is this obvious sockpuppet still editing? Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope "buddies" was being used in a sarcastic sense, as "EditorXXV" is a long-running troll of the project as well as a WR regular. My talk page comment to him was just letting him kknow I know who the sock was. That's for thedeets.com link though, I'll add it to my wall of shame. Anyways, off to SPI to hopefully get rid of Mr. Sunshine here. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close as irrepairably tainted by off-wiki canvassing. VERTott and now A Pocket Full of Sunshine confess that they were contacted off-wiki. Very suspicious. CallawayRox (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait until we get to the bottom of this off-wiki stuff. As far as we know, it could just be invented out of thin air to try and manufacture just such a wikilawyer close. Reyk _YO! 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must be blind but I don't see where VERTott has stated that....not to mention no proof has been pro-offered. I find it highly suspicious that people !voting delete are now being accused of canvassing this discussion when a number of the delete !votes are based on canvass reasons. Seems to me like someone is trying to make it look like canvassing has happened. Especially considering one of those that were "canvassed" voted in the opposite direction. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altough VERTott was canvassed to !vote keep.... So if its happening it equalled itself out... -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Vertott claims to have been canvassed by the pro-keep side, Sunshine by the pro-delete side. I think Vertott's claim is at least superficially plausible; they've used the rescue tag a lot in the past which would make Vertott a logical target for off-wiki canvassing. Pocket Full of Sunshine's account is just plain bizarre. I simply cannot understand why the only target of a pro-delete canvassing effort we know of would be a person with 50 odd fish-related edits two years ago and no history of getting involved with the inclusionist-deletionist debate. It's literally unbelievable and so I cannot support shutting down a productive conversation because of it. If we had more editors claiming to have been canvassed by the pro-delete side it would be a different story. Reyk _YO! 21:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it extremely peculiar to be referred to as "vicious, hateful, and immature" by a user with whom I have never interacted with. A user who until today has never edited WP: space apart from joining fish wiki-projects over a year ago. A user who was already using talkback templates 2 weeks after creation. I think A Nobody just kamakazied one of his sock accounts. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sunshine's account was created 10 days after the last update on Nobody's block log and they both seem to have strong pro-inclusion ideologies. Is it worth looking at SPI?
        talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Go for it. I'm convinced it's him. Reyk _YO! 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's the point? Any technical data has gone stale long ago, and frankly this isn't that big of a deal. No one actually believes that Pocket Full of Sunshine was canvassed, and as attempts to derail a discussion go this is equal parts fail and embarrassing. AniMate 00:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't mean to imply I wanted to start one, just if it was worth looking into. I'm not actually familiar with how SPI works and the pre-requisites. I agree that it's a pretty weak attempt to prevent the discussion from reaching its seemingly inevitable conclusion. With possible block evasion going on as well, I think his post has probably helped the deletionists more than the inclusionists in this discussion.
            talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
            ]

irrepairably tainted, you are kidding, two cases when over 60 others have !voted does not come close to tainting anything. Neither have given anything in support of the claim, Reyk's analysis does give one pause to consider if there might be an attempt to derail a TfD that looks like it could end up with the template deleted, perhaps laying the foundation for a future appeal to

Mtking ^(edits) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

On close inspection of both users claiming they were canvassed, I'm inclined to agree. VERTott has a history of using the rescue template and stated in the past that he would normally "only get involved in Deletion's when I see an article trying to be deleted that should be kept"[10]. On the other hand, Sunshine has no prior history in AFD or ARS, enters the discussion with very strong opinions and attempts to reframe the discussion as an attack on the ARS. Even if canvassing were going on, both sides would be well aware that 'blind canvassing' of people with no prior history in AFD or ARS would only damage their cause rather than help it, so I find Sunshine's claim, along with his past fish-exclusive history, to be highly questionable. And predictably, neither of the claims of canvassing are supported by evidence so there's no reason to stifle valid discussion on the basis of two unsubstantiated and quite possibly politically motivated accusations.

talk) 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Case in point: MakeSense64's delete below to counteract the "tricks." People are convinced that A Pocket Full of Sunshine is the great A Nobody trying to save the rescue tag. Noone cares if it's him or a troll!! CallawayRox (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Normally I don't vote, but will make an exception here after seeing what kind of tricks are being tried to derail this TfD discussion. To me the ARS members who voted here have failed to explain why their project cannot do just the same work without this template. They also fail to even aknowledge the canvassing concerns that arise out of the way they have been using their template. I was not an active editor at the time of previous TfD nominations for this template, but I did read through the previous discussion and it becomes quite clear that the community's objections to this template have increased considerably over time. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-The irony of the SOPA and WP Canvass – the juxtaposition of the SOPA Protests and this discussion provides an interesting irony. WP and 1000s of other websites openly canvassed their readers and advised them to vote-stack against SOPA to their representatives in Congress. They did this by putting tags and notices on their webpages. Isn’t interesting that a community like WP which itself uses
  WP:CANVASS as a weapon to discourage this type of behavior internally, actively engaged in this type of blatant canvassing behavior itself. In the case of SOPA, supporters of SOPA cried foul, dirty trick, et. al. Very similar to what’s going on here, those in favor of deletion at all costs, are crying foul on ARS—canvassing is evil and should be stopped. While those that believe saving worthy articles from deletion is a good cause and calling attention to that cause on article pages is a good thing are demonized. What irony! --Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm trying to formulate a proper response to this, but it is hard to type while snickering uncontrollably. Trying to martyr yourself by linking to the SOPA opposition is serious weaksauce, bro. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do snicker uncontrollably, I just woke up this morning thinking that this was a bit ironic, mostly because I believe

  WP:CANVASS is an ill-concieved and misused guideline as it stands in a collaborative environment. As far a martyring myself, does that hurt? Do I need some asprin to ease the pain? (I absolutely don't understand how (what would consitute) martyring myself!) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Double irony?

  Fram (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Indeed --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rest assured Mike, there area number of us - myself included - that firmly objected to Wikipedia being used for advocacy and political activism. It has nothing to do with personal agendas and everything to do with integrity. Personally I think it's disgraceful that a few hundred people, in a 72 hour period that wasn't even advertised properly until 30 hours in, were able to decide to throw away the years of effort by thousands of editors in building Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable, neutral and independent source of free information so that they could take part in a local politically motivated protest. Not that you said as much, but I'll say right now in the strongest possible terms that I reject any assertions that the SOPA blackout sets any precedent whatsoever for weakening or disregarding policies and processes like
    WP:CANVASS
    . It's bad enough that the protest now sets the precedent for political interest groups to hijack Wikipedia by nothing other than throwing up a 'should Wikipedia protest X' page backed by strength of votes and use it to promote their cause, or that by showing we are willing to take sides on an issue we have irreparably damaged our ability to claim neutrality; I won't have an extremely poor choice of action damage the project any further than it has already.

Drawing a comparison between the SOPA protest and the ARS is disingenuous at best. When small sample sizes are employed, as is the case in most Wikipedia discussions, canvassing has the destructive effect of unbalancing discussion and misleadingly casting the appearance of strong support or opposition. It doesn't matter if it's applied to Wikipedia or to the SOPA protest or to anything else, canvassing in any situation like that is fundamentally disruptive.

talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please understand that my post above, was nothing more nor less than an observation of the irony. I am biased in observation because I don't believe

WP:CANVASS the way it is invoked and used is good for WP. That said, the observation wasn't intended to be an endorsement or call to precedent of anything. We get way to touchy about these things. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your post may have been observational, granted, but I predicted before the SOPA blackout began that people would start using arguments along the lines of 'but we did it then' to try to get around well established guidelines. My intention for that is to respond firmly and early to try to head off issues like that before they even form. Certainly no direct or personal criticism was intended, and I hope you can take my response in the light it was intended. It would have been nice if more people read and understood the

talk) 22:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Quite a few keep !votes above state that they don't like
  WP:CANVASS. That's very interesting, but this is not a forum for overturning established guidelines. If you really think that you can do it, start a discussion at the talk page there; otherwise, your dislike of this guideline really isn't relevant. --NYKevin @196, i.e. 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — several reasons:
  1. There are numerous templates that already explicitly state how an article can be rescued. — These range from {{
     expert
     }} to the hundreds of other template messages— all with varying degress of "hey this article needs to be rescued" emphasis. The less urgent tend to be yellow, the orange tend to be more urgent. AfD is the last chance, and the redness of the template emphasizes this.
  2. The AfD template is already a {{rescue}} template — in fact, it's the last rescue template an article sees before deletion. Same goes with CSD and PROD-tagged articles.
  3. It's canvassing for keep !votes — any way you cut it. If {{
     WP:DRV would be something like "{{stillAwful
     }}," which I assure you would result in it being deleted for canvassing delete !votes.