- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator – forget it then. Melsaran ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
This isn't any different from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion or
meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, aside from the fact that it promotes votestacking. It's a "rescue squadron" that encourages its members to add a {{
rescue}} tag to an article that is nominated for deletion but should (according to them) not be deleted, so they can vote "keep" in an AFD nomination en masse. If you disagree with an article's proposed deletion, then make your case on the AFD page and try to convince others of your argument. Don't try to recruit editors with the same viewpoint to "rescue" your article. According to
WP:CANVASS, votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion. In this case, you are notifying editors who are on the record with a specific view (inclusionism) by adding articles to a category that the members of the Squadron check regularly. It also says messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. These messages (templates/categories) are meant to influence the outcome, otherwise it wouldn't be called a "rescue squadron". Ergo, delete.
Melsaran (
talk)
14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and thwap the nominator soundly about the head and shoulders to boot.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, why? I'm always willing to change my opinion if you convince me by solid arguments, but hitting me on the head until I surrender probably isn't going to work :)
Melsaran (
talk)
15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that you are not likely to be amenable to convincing, actually. The wikilawyerish tone of your nomination leads me to believe that you
Fail To Get It, and frankly my life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable. I've already
written at length about my objections to the canvassing policy. Hopefully enough sensible people will become aware of this "discussion" and overwhelm the sheer lunacy of this nomination; sadly, I fear that such will not happen. Cheers.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, if you don't want to say why you want to keep the article because "[your] life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable", then why do you comment at all? This isn't a vote, so frankly I don't really understand what you try to accomplish by merely saying "keep and /slap the nominator".
Melsaran (
talk)
15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because I'm frankly quite sick and tired of seeing Wikipedia slowly die a death of a million papercuts, inflicted by well-meaning but clueless editors more interested in playing bureaucracy games than actually improving an encyclopedia. In any case, I have two questions for you:
- Where is the evidence that the Article Rescue Squadron has engaged in votestacking?
- How will deleting this project space page improve the encyclopedia? It's quite clear that this project is capable of improving the encyclopedia (as it has already done so), so you will need to convince me, and others, that the damage to the encyclopedia done by allowing it to remain (if, in fact, there is any) does not overwhelm the benefit of keeping it about. Please note also that I said "improve the encyclopedia", not "improve the efficiency of Wikipedia's bureaucracy". The two are not the same, and there is a strong argument to be made that gumming up Wikipedia's deletion engine would, in the long run, improve Wikipedia.
- While you come up with answers to these questions, you may also wish to meditate on the phrase "Consume flat space"; a relevant insight may arise. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because I'm frankly quite sick and tired of seeing Wikipedia slowly die a death of a million papercuts, inflicted by well-meaning but clueless editors more interested in playing bureaucracy games than actually improving an encyclopedia. In any case, I have two questions for you:
- Hmm, if you don't want to say why you want to keep the article because "[your] life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable", then why do you comment at all? This isn't a vote, so frankly I don't really understand what you try to accomplish by merely saying "keep and /slap the nominator".
Melsaran (
talk)
15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that you are not likely to be amenable to convincing, actually. The wikilawyerish tone of your nomination leads me to believe that you
Fail To Get It, and frankly my life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable. I've already
written at length about my objections to the canvassing policy. Hopefully enough sensible people will become aware of this "discussion" and overwhelm the sheer lunacy of this nomination; sadly, I fear that such will not happen. Cheers.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, why? I'm always willing to change my opinion if you convince me by solid arguments, but hitting me on the head until I surrender probably isn't going to work :)
Melsaran (
talk)
15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't decided on the nomination as yet, but it seems that if someone tags an article and fixes it right away, then the reason the article was brought to AfD no longer applies, and the article will be kept. However, my concern is that the article will be tagged for rescue, a bunch of keep will flood the discussion leading to a keep consensus, but nothing ever happens to the article. Wikipedia already has numerous tags added to pages that foster procrastination with dealing with issues. If that is what the Rescue tag does in practice, then I'm not interested. --
Flyguy649
talk
contribs
15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a discussion on whether or not to delete a WikiProject's team page, not whether to delete the {{ Rescue}} template. Please try to stay on point. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - The group does seem to have the express interest in improving articles, which is well and good. If, however, it functionally becomes a votestacking center, then it should be deleted on that basis alone. Given the number of existing members, I guess I can't object to its being kept, provided it actually engages in more licit than illicit conduct. If that changes, then the possibility of deletion should be reconsidered. John Carter 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and also buy some reading glasses for the nominator. There is nothing on the page that suggests that members are encouraged to vote "keep" in an AFD nomination en masse. In fact, the project page specifically disclaims that idea:
- "It's not about casting keep votes or making policy."
- "One person can't easily sway a dozen. But the Rescue Squadron isn't about writing on talk pages. It's about editing article pages.
- Similarly, nowhere does it advocate canvassing. And it definitely does not advocate inclusionism as such; the stated goal of the project/society/[whatever it is], is to fix articles on encyclopedic topics that would be deleted for being of poor quality (and this does happen). Lewis Collard! ( baby i'm bad news) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - if there comes a time when ARS members are in fact !voting KEEP to AfDs en masse, then that should be dealt with at that time, in the appropriate manner. Deleting the page for a perceived but not real problem is not the way to go. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator misses point; this is not about vote-stacking but rather improving articles on worthwhile topics that get nominated for deletion. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep groups/projects which promote the improvement of articles should be encouraged, not deleted. * Ail lema 16:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator – forget it then. Melsaran ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
This isn't any different from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion or
meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, aside from the fact that it promotes votestacking. It's a "rescue squadron" that encourages its members to add a {{
rescue}} tag to an article that is nominated for deletion but should (according to them) not be deleted, so they can vote "keep" in an AFD nomination en masse. If you disagree with an article's proposed deletion, then make your case on the AFD page and try to convince others of your argument. Don't try to recruit editors with the same viewpoint to "rescue" your article. According to
WP:CANVASS, votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion. In this case, you are notifying editors who are on the record with a specific view (inclusionism) by adding articles to a category that the members of the Squadron check regularly. It also says messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. These messages (templates/categories) are meant to influence the outcome, otherwise it wouldn't be called a "rescue squadron". Ergo, delete.
Melsaran (
talk)
14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and thwap the nominator soundly about the head and shoulders to boot.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, why? I'm always willing to change my opinion if you convince me by solid arguments, but hitting me on the head until I surrender probably isn't going to work :)
Melsaran (
talk)
15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that you are not likely to be amenable to convincing, actually. The wikilawyerish tone of your nomination leads me to believe that you
Fail To Get It, and frankly my life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable. I've already
written at length about my objections to the canvassing policy. Hopefully enough sensible people will become aware of this "discussion" and overwhelm the sheer lunacy of this nomination; sadly, I fear that such will not happen. Cheers.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, if you don't want to say why you want to keep the article because "[your] life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable", then why do you comment at all? This isn't a vote, so frankly I don't really understand what you try to accomplish by merely saying "keep and /slap the nominator".
Melsaran (
talk)
15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because I'm frankly quite sick and tired of seeing Wikipedia slowly die a death of a million papercuts, inflicted by well-meaning but clueless editors more interested in playing bureaucracy games than actually improving an encyclopedia. In any case, I have two questions for you:
- Where is the evidence that the Article Rescue Squadron has engaged in votestacking?
- How will deleting this project space page improve the encyclopedia? It's quite clear that this project is capable of improving the encyclopedia (as it has already done so), so you will need to convince me, and others, that the damage to the encyclopedia done by allowing it to remain (if, in fact, there is any) does not overwhelm the benefit of keeping it about. Please note also that I said "improve the encyclopedia", not "improve the efficiency of Wikipedia's bureaucracy". The two are not the same, and there is a strong argument to be made that gumming up Wikipedia's deletion engine would, in the long run, improve Wikipedia.
- While you come up with answers to these questions, you may also wish to meditate on the phrase "Consume flat space"; a relevant insight may arise. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because I'm frankly quite sick and tired of seeing Wikipedia slowly die a death of a million papercuts, inflicted by well-meaning but clueless editors more interested in playing bureaucracy games than actually improving an encyclopedia. In any case, I have two questions for you:
- Hmm, if you don't want to say why you want to keep the article because "[your] life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable", then why do you comment at all? This isn't a vote, so frankly I don't really understand what you try to accomplish by merely saying "keep and /slap the nominator".
Melsaran (
talk)
15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that you are not likely to be amenable to convincing, actually. The wikilawyerish tone of your nomination leads me to believe that you
Fail To Get It, and frankly my life is too short to waste it converting the unwilling or the inable. I've already
written at length about my objections to the canvassing policy. Hopefully enough sensible people will become aware of this "discussion" and overwhelm the sheer lunacy of this nomination; sadly, I fear that such will not happen. Cheers.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, why? I'm always willing to change my opinion if you convince me by solid arguments, but hitting me on the head until I surrender probably isn't going to work :)
Melsaran (
talk)
15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't decided on the nomination as yet, but it seems that if someone tags an article and fixes it right away, then the reason the article was brought to AfD no longer applies, and the article will be kept. However, my concern is that the article will be tagged for rescue, a bunch of keep will flood the discussion leading to a keep consensus, but nothing ever happens to the article. Wikipedia already has numerous tags added to pages that foster procrastination with dealing with issues. If that is what the Rescue tag does in practice, then I'm not interested. --
Flyguy649
talk
contribs
15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a discussion on whether or not to delete a WikiProject's team page, not whether to delete the {{ Rescue}} template. Please try to stay on point. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - The group does seem to have the express interest in improving articles, which is well and good. If, however, it functionally becomes a votestacking center, then it should be deleted on that basis alone. Given the number of existing members, I guess I can't object to its being kept, provided it actually engages in more licit than illicit conduct. If that changes, then the possibility of deletion should be reconsidered. John Carter 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and also buy some reading glasses for the nominator. There is nothing on the page that suggests that members are encouraged to vote "keep" in an AFD nomination en masse. In fact, the project page specifically disclaims that idea:
- "It's not about casting keep votes or making policy."
- "One person can't easily sway a dozen. But the Rescue Squadron isn't about writing on talk pages. It's about editing article pages.
- Similarly, nowhere does it advocate canvassing. And it definitely does not advocate inclusionism as such; the stated goal of the project/society/[whatever it is], is to fix articles on encyclopedic topics that would be deleted for being of poor quality (and this does happen). Lewis Collard! ( baby i'm bad news) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - if there comes a time when ARS members are in fact !voting KEEP to AfDs en masse, then that should be dealt with at that time, in the appropriate manner. Deleting the page for a perceived but not real problem is not the way to go. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator misses point; this is not about vote-stacking but rather improving articles on worthwhile topics that get nominated for deletion. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep groups/projects which promote the improvement of articles should be encouraged, not deleted. * Ail lema 16:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.