• Comment Some members of this squadron came to an AfD I nominated recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines, but they have made a reasonable contribution there. While I do think they are making a fair effort to improve articles, I have to share TDA's concerns after seeing what is happening with the AfD he has brought up. We have to be careful that the rescue tag in combination with a rescue "squadron" does not lead to some unintended votestacking effect. We cannot avoid the fact that a selected group with a known opinion (leaning towards keeping more articles), get's notified by this.

The idea that it are not the votes that are counted, but the policy based points, is a nice ideal, but does it also work that way in practice? I think the votes do sway the opinion, maybe not of the closing editor, but of the other people who vote or comment in the AfD. And if the votes are not counted, then why do we give a vote? Then we can as well just comment (which is what I am always doing) and let the closing editors count the policy based points from all the comments. If the votes are not counted anyway, then why do we worry about votestacking and canvassing? Answer: it is a problem because the vote count actually does play some role, no matter how much we try to dream otherwise. And that's why it is a problem when a rescue tag on an AfD article starts pulling in "squadron" members who then all vote "Keep" because the article has their project rescue tag on it.

I see two things that could help with this. 1) the rescue project could make more clear to its member that "Keep" is not the only way that an article can get rescued. "Merge" and "Rename" are two other possible votes/outcomes of an AfD in which the material gets kept and can get improved by this rescue team. So I would expect to see a little more variation in their AfD votes. 2) Restricting the rescue team members from voting in AfD is rather drastic. I don't think that's necessary. But it might be good when rescue members mention their membership when they vote in a AfD that was tagged for rescue. That wouldn't hurt. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the ARS' own project page: "The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles... adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content [, which] will help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted... The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes...". The problem appears to be that some ARS members (mentioning no names) seem to view their role as votestackers rather than editors: I've often encountered ARS members at AfD who's only contribution to either article or debate was "meets GNG" or similar (again, I'm deliberately not providing names or diffs, this shouldn't be a witchhunt), but such arguments will be discounted by any competent closing admin. This is an issue with individual users, rather than with the ARS Project as a whole. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see reliable sources already found by someone, click on them and agree they are reliable, then what else would you say? Everyone looks at the references and either agrees that is sufficient coverage or they argue that it isn't. Dream Focus 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• AN/I is not really the right venue for this. What the ARS is doing here is pretty much what the ARS does; as always the closing admin has the discretion to disregard poorly considered votes (keep, delete or otherwise) or votes that don't address the rationale presented for deletion. If the closing admin weighs such votes improperly in your view, DRV provides a remedy. If you're looking for a more broad debate on the ARS, you'll need to put together an RFC. 28bytes (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no AFD members that comment in every single article tagged for Rescue, spamming "keep" about. That has never been a problem. Those that show up usually look over the list and only click on something that catches their interest. There are articles tagged which none of us respond to. If I can determine with 100% certainly an article should be deleted, I do post "delete" at times. If not, I usually just ask questions, or don't comment at all. Dream Focus 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Advocate here. It seems blatently clear to me that a great many life preservers are thrown not to improve the article, but as a clarion call to get ARS members to participate in AfD discussions. They don't necessarily need to get all their members out to vote; three or four of them will usually sway many AfDs in their favor. I've also seen ARS members add sources that barely mention a topic at all, then claim that that means that it passes GNG and must automatically be kept. Those sources are essentially no better than if the article wasn't sourced at all. And very rarely do I see ARS members get an article to DYK or GA quality, or even B or C class. They often just improve an article just enough so it allegedly passes GNG. And that's another problem with ARS members...many of them disdain notability guidelines, particularly the specific ones like WP:POLITICIAN, which they choose to ignore, claiming only GNG matters. I've even seen ARS members start threads on ANI against people who nominate articles for deletion based mostly on the fact that they didn't like their nominations. This has gotta stop Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree. I have rarely seen the squadron be helpful in an article. Usually all it is, is a call to come and stack votes when I see the template put on the article. The rare times I see an attempt to put any effort into fixing the article its with links that only have a passing mention of the subject and don't actually help with anything. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to see the main rescue template be done away with entirely, honestly; one troublesome wikiproject does not have a right to advertise itself in article-space as they do. Let them reword Template:ARSnote and use that to flag the AfDs only if they like, just as other wikiprojects do. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with most of what PBP said. The ARS is of course entitled to its own opinion about the notability guidelines, wrong though it is. But their template amounts to canvassing for inclusioniosts, their members frequently attack AfD nominators and people they perceive as enemies, and they try to save articles with dubious sources because they want to beat their enemies, not improve the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As the comments below are mostly about the tag it should be noted the main page of the Wikiproject itself does not really respect WP:CANVASS. Under the rescue template instructions there is a section for Usage with the following in boldface:

As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen.

This reads like an instruction for any member of the group to vote keep on any tagged article. Other parts do say they are not about casting keep votes, but there is not an actual instruction against everyone just voting keep on the AfD when an article is tagged.

It is also not just North's actions that are at issue. As noted before, Dream's userpage has several comments that are little more than advice about how to game a deletion discussion in favor of keep while railing about the horrible deletionists. That editor's page is also at times a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC in its demonization of deletionists. Given that Dream is often voting keep right alongside North I think both of these editors are exhibiting problematic behaviors that need to be looked at.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see much use to this thread. If you don't like the actions of an individual editor, usually an Rfc or an Mfd of their userpage is the best way to proceed. If you object to the general idea of the ARS, you could bring the whole thing to Mfd--it's been done a few times before but maybe this time you'll get consensus. My suggestion is to monitor the pages that are tagged for rescue and counter what you see as frivolous votes with policy-based arguments. Or create a rival WP:WikiProject Policy and Guideline Based Articles for Deletion Comment Squad? (Maybe something a bit pithier though.) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion about the rescue tag (diff):

  Most articles marked for rescue are not improved, despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ("The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles."). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolvement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanSat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi-vegetarianism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Day New York (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Smalltalk, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation for some recent examples. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkstars is a particularly telling example—a member of ARS marks an article for rescue merely because the article was relisted with no other voters. Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Goodvac (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You link to AFDs where members found references proving that the subject was notable and met all requirements for an article. That is what we are there for. If you want the information into the article, just copy and paste it over yourself. Dream Focus 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps better to judge any tag by its successes, and not its failures, not by who uses it, and definitely not by assuming bad faith in its use. Besides being listed as a member or ARS, I am a member of

Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, and

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles,

...all being projects that include on their project page links to AFD delsorts of article of concern to those projects:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

or as in the case of WP:URA, they list articles that have issues needing to be addressed.

The above are projects where my editing skills occasionaly prove helpful to the project through proactive article improvement. And worth noting, is that far more often than with ARS tags, the tags from these other projcts do not result in improvements nor prevent deletion of unsuitable articles. Interestingly, if being tagged through delsort for input from projects (other that ARS) results in a keep or a delete, we do not cry foul nor cry canvas.

Should ARS tagging have better instruction? Perhaps. But a tagging NOT resulting in an article being improved is never a reason to not use such tags nor declare them somehow useless. The ultimate goal of any such tags is the improving of articles to better serve the project. The use or not of such tags is not predicated upon success, but upon hope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the {{rescue}} template. Frankly, I don't see any point of it other than to canvass and I am tempted to send it back to TfD again. However, here are some examples of the tag being abused.

• TLG Communications
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
  • [1] Is a brief mention, not even an entire sentence
  • [2]] Is also a brief mention but actually has 3 sentences
• Lena Cruz
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
    • 3 ARS members !vote ([3] [4] [5] keep at AFD without making improvements to the article
• Cinnamon challenge
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
  • Northamerica1000 does major improvements to the article that satisfies GNG (rescued the article) but leaves the tag in place (effectively canvassing !keep votes, no other purpose now that article has been fixed)
    • Two keep !votes ([6] [7]) having made no changes to the article
• Cyrus Pahlavi
  • Tagged for rescue, AFD resulting in delete
• Russian Social Terms
  • Tagged for rescue, AFD resulting in delete
• Children's Philanthropy Center
  • Tagged for rescue, no improvements by Northamerica1000, AFD resulted in delete

All of this is actually an improvement over his previous typical drive-by {{rescue}} tagging [8], none of which received any improvement during the taging that would save it from AFD, but it's clear the tag is being used to canvass !votes rather than to improve.

Overall, I dislike Northamerica1000 but I'll firmly admit that he/she does a lot of work to improve articles that are up for deletion. My point point of contention is the overuse/abusive use of the {{rescue}} template. He/she clearly uses it to canvass rather than to suggest someone improves the article.--v/r - TP 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(an aside:) User:TParis informed me of this discussion. My being involved in the discussion at the above linked AFD for Lena Cruz was NOT due to or a result of the rescue tag. I was alerted to the article by that other tag placed on the article... the one by User:Gene93k: "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)". However, I did not perceive Gene's use of the tag which alerted me to the article as either misused or canvassing. Further, my opinion there had absolutely nothing to do with the rescue tag... being based upon my own WP:BEFORE, the sources found and offered by others, and my conclusion that the project would be far better served by application of WP:ATD's suggesting nominators check for sources for an unref'd article and rather than force cleanup through AFD, instead consider tagging the article for issues... and in this particular case, notifying WP:BIOG or WP:URA through appropriate tagging would also not be misuse of tags or canvassing. A deletion based upon someone else not yet fixing an addressable issue, is not always the best option.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you cherry picking AFDs like that? Childrens Philanthropy Center had one member of the Rescue Squadron say keep in it, that NorthAmerica1000. This should prove that tagging something for Rescue doesn't automatically bring over keep votes. It also shows that in places where most people said keep, they still delete some articles. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_Social_Terms Three of us said Keep, it encyclopedic to have that, with only one person agreeing with the nominator to delete that. Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list shows what articles are currently tagged, by who, and what the result is when the AFD is over. Dream Focus 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not some people vote keep sometimes is rather irrelevant since posting to a illusionist group where it can be safely assumed that in most (not all) cases its likely to get a keep instead of a delete is clearly doing it for the canvass value and would violate the part of canvass which says not to post invites to editors clearly on one side of the issue and not to both sides. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Childrens Philanthropy Center was to demonstrate a case of an article that couldn't be rescued but was tagged anyway. Honestly, the tag is pointless because if you do the work to determine if an article is rescuable, than you are 3/4ths of the way to rescuing the article yourself (ie, you've found refs).--v/r - TP 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Other Wikiprojects are informed of AFDs to bring interested parties to them. I don't really see any difference here. Someone believes that the article is notable and request help in finding reliable sources to back that up, and those of us wishing to help show up and do so. I'd like to see what people who don't regularly but heads with the ARS members in various AFDs have to say. Obviously if you are determined to delete something, and people show up and interfere with you getting your way, some would be upset about that, and start complaining about those on the other side of the argument with them. And we could just as easily cherry pick examples of someone clearly notable, who had people show up and say delete without bothering to even click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, and find that had a detailed article about them in the New York Times. Dream Focus 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I picked articles and AFDs based on whether the rescue tag involved improvements by the ARS improvements by Northamerica1000 or just keep !votes. I saw none tagged by Northamerica1000 that involved improvements by other ARS members. Feel free to prove me wrong. The rescue tag should be removed once improvements are made to an article. The {{rescue}} template is a big notification to folks who are self-identified "inclusionists" and violates the "Audience" part of WP:CANVASS. (After EC) And other Wikiprojects do not have a problem with the "Audience" portion. There isn't a bias to include articles by other projects.--v/r - TP 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Other Wikiprojects are likely to have varying viewpoints on if an article should be kept or not. A wikiproject whose sole purpose is to save articles from deletion is clearly not in the same category as most wikiprojects. Its no wonder that many people consider the ARS as WikiProject:Canvass. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It does seem like Northamerica and others are using the tag for the wrong reasons. Northamerica can improve articles all he wants (provided the references he uses are of proper quality and he follows all relevant guidelines), but I think he should step away from tagging them for rescue. TP, you're absolutely right the the template should go if it continues to be serially misused. Failing that, I honestly believe you shouldn't be allowed to participate in an AfD of an article you tagged for rescue. One or the other, not both Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please see the instructions for use of the rescue tag, at WP:RESCUETEMPLATE. I didn't create the instructions for this template, I just abide by them. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose Although I would hope that closing admins at AfD have the nous to ignore a chorus of bleating "keeps" with nothing to back them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience they don't. Not unless the bleating comes from IPs or new users. I find most admins loathe to throw out a bunch of keep !votes that are based on faulty logic, often going with a no consensus so they don't have to make that hard decision. This is one of the fundamental flaws with AfD. This whole dance we do to write "!vote" when the reality is that it very clearly is a vote. In all my years here, I've repeatedly seen junk arguments used to keep articles which really shouldn't be here, but survive on admins who seemingly just tally it up and call it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment– I don't use the rescue template for any reason other than tagging articles for rescue that I consider to be notable topics, which could use more sourcing, copy-editing, inline citations, and general clean-up. Per WP:RESCUETAG, the instructions for placing the template are as follows:

"Our main focus is on articles on notable topics going through Articles for deletion (AfD) that:

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• Need cleaning up."

Perhaps this discussion should be about the instructions for use of the rescue tag, because I always only follow the instructions. Use of the rescue tag is not canvassing, it's placing a template on an article per the instructions. I have no control how other Wikipedia users !vote in AfD discussions whatsoever. I have never canvassed or messaged anyone to post a "keep" !vote in an AfD discussion whatsoever. I was disappointed to see that a user I haven't communicated with much has started this discussion by stating that they dislike me from the start; an unfortunate style in which to begin a discussion, in my opinion. I'm neutral about the individual who started this discussion myself, however. If you don't like the tag, for whatever reasons, then please feel free to send it to templates for discussion. The title of this discussion, "canvassing", and then my user name directly below it is misleading, in my opinion.

Regarding the statement above about not removing the rescue tag after performing article improvements, again, this is due to the instructions at WP:RESCUETAG on the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject (verbatim):

"Removing a rescue tag:
It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Wikipedia."

Removal of the tag prior to the AfD's closue is against the instructions for use of the tag, per the WikiProject's instructions. Thus, again, perhaps a discussion about the rules and guidelines of the WikiProject itself is in order. If I were to remove the tag prior to AfD closure, that would go against the instructions for use of the tag. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A Wikiproject cannot invent rules for its own benefit and then point to those rules when their behaviour is questioned, expecting everyone else to respect and abide by them. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but removing a wikiproject's templates and tags without consensus is disruptive. Best to have that discussion first. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I joined ARS two days ago because I noticed that many tagged articles are indeed notable. I only consider it canvassing with individual editors and I do not consider it a rampant group of inclusionists that hijack AfDs with keeps. Dream Focus, for example, tagged a magazine article for rescue. Although the consensus was delete, I see why he did it. Even though the fact that the magazine's claim to notability was unreferenced, there was still a strong claim. I would be fine with the article being recreated if that claim was verified. Northamerica, on the other hand, has misused it. I would say though that the majority of ARS members do not use it wrongly. Sure it can even cause canvassing when it is used correctly, but that is what closings admins are for. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have only followed the instructions for use of the template. Perhaps consider working to obtain consensus to change the instructions for use of the rescue template itself. The title of this discussion, "canvassing", and then my user name directly below it is misleading, in my opinion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That instruction page was created by a group of ARS users, hardly backed by community consensus. Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then address perceived issues and create a consesnsus for what those instructions might say. What is the sense of banning someone who did NOT create the instructions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban Per the examples offered showing that AFD is not just a headcount and that closers properly weigh the merits of an AFD discussion before closing. When ANY project tag is added to an aricle at AFD, tt is either improved or it is not. That such tags alert those most often willing to improve articles, no matter the project or the tag, acts to improve the project. Forbidding someone from involving themselves in discussion of something that they have tagged in their hope that others more capable to do so might actually do so, does not improve the project. In order to avoid drama from those who dislike the tag I have myself for many many months avoided tagging aricles for rescue. This does not mean the tag is useless or that it is any more an act of canvassing than any other tag set to alert those who might be able to improve artcles for the project, that something needs their eyes. A use of such tags does not always result in an article being improved. Failure does not mean that such tags are useless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept that if there was stronger evidence showing that the results of the {{rescue}} template was improved articles rather than !votes at AFD. I saw very few times in Northamerica1000's rescue tagging where improvements were made by other ARS members (plenty he fixed himself and I nod him for that) but as I've shown above, it more often results in !votes.--v/r - TP 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone having a sense that something is improvable and then alerting others who may be more qualified to address issues is a better argument for addressing usage instructions, than it is for banning someone who uses it in good faith... even if the result was unsuccessful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after multiple E/Cs) I have to agree with TParis here; at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Elleore, there are three ARS members (and Radiofan (talk · contribs), whose essay makes it clear that he's a member, even without the tag on his page) who argued to keep the article. Northamerica1000 did some expansion work (including adding two reviews of the single book which contains a section relating to this micronation), but the fundamental notability issue remains (one book whose value as a source is open to question, and a single website hit with a cursory overview of the "nation's" claims). And yes, there was a rescue template tossed onto this article before the four ARS votes rolled in. (The article was kept, for what it's worth.) I don't know that this rises to the level of a topic ban, but it's food for thought.Horologium (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming off-topic, re-discussion of an AfD here. It's one-sided to only mention how users of a WikiProject !voted and omit discussion and analysis about how other users who are not a part of the WikiProject !voted. It's also unfair and overly-assumptive to state that I am somehow knowledgeable in advance about what other Wikipedia users may hypothetically type on their computers after a template has been placed in an article in accordance with the instructions for using that template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment– Regarding the examples above, provided by creator of this discussion:

• TLG Communications - I've personally added more sources to this article after this discussion was began. See article. It takes time to do research, write, add sources, etc. No stipulation exists that all work has to be done at once. A significant part of use of the rescue template is to divide the work among Article rescue squadron WikiProject participants, in the interest of improving articles that are tagged for rescue. Of course, I have no control over what other users actually do or don't do.
• Lena Cruz - I have no control over what other users do on Wikipedia whatsoever, how they !vote, their actions, etc. I didn't canvass these people whatsoever or ask them to contribute to the article on their talk pages. I'm not responsible for other people's behaviors and actions.
• Cinnamon challenge - It's against the instructions at WP:RESCUETEMPLATE to remove the template once its been placed. These are the instructions.
• Regarding the articles that resulted in delete - Firstly, I don't have access to them, as they've been deleted. It is unreasonable to expect that all articles tagged for rescue will be kept, just as it is unreasonable to expect that all articles nominated for deletion will be deleted. Regarding the Children's Philanthropy Center article, could you point out specifically how "no improvements" were made? I recall doing some edits to the article, but don't have access to it, because it was deleted. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You edited that article two times. One was to throw the ARS tag on, and the other was to change the size of the picture. Those were the last two edits to the article. Horologium (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Northamerica1000 made 9 edits. Of the other 7, 5 were minor formatting changes, 1 was addition of "{{stub}}" and 1 was removal of a prod tag. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this, User:28bytes, I recall doing some work on the article. It's difficult to ascertain without access to it. The creator of this discussion stated that I made no improvements to the article (above). I now disagree with that assessment, as I work to improve articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of fairness and transparency I have temporarily restored the page history here while this discussion is ongoing. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:28bytes. Your administrative capacity here is appreciated. It can be confusing when one administrator makes a statement that two edits were made to a deleted article, and then another administrator comes along and corrects the statement, without people being able to view the actual material. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just to clarify, Horologium means you editing that article two times since it was nominated for AFD. The two edits are as they describe above. The point is that no improvements were made once the rescue template was added.--v/r - TP 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stipulation of being on a timer to do additional work after adding a template to an article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you are discussing and article that is up for deletion, there is a timer. Horologium (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about a timer. If you made changes to "improve" the article, than what purpose was the {{rescue}} template? You already made changes to improve it, didn't you? If you add a rescue template, that implies there is more to be fixed and my point is that nothing happened. That seems to be either 1) There was nothing to improve and the article was misused on an unsalvagable article, 2) The article was improved to meet notability guidelines and the rescue template was used to canvass keep !votes, or 3) The article was not improved to meet notability guidelines and the rescue template was used to canvass keep !votes. What other purpose was the rescue template for that article?--v/r - TP 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment– Unfortunately, the preliminary wording of this discussion is very misleading, typecasting me as a canvasser when in reality, I've only followed the instructions for use of the rescue template. I am writing this statement for the record, so that it's included after this discussion has been archived. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiprojects are welcome to establish their own 'instructions', but local consensus within the project can't override the broader consensus in policies like WP:CANVASS or others. If the ARS page had a few lines saying that its members could, for instance, procedurally close any AFD at will simply on a whim, it should be obvious that even if everyone on the project agreed, they would still be held responsible for their actions if they actually acted to that effect. Even for things like the rescue template, the fact that it exists does not equate to tacit approval of its use. Wikipedia's policies still (and almost always) apply. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose AFD is chronically ill-attended to the point that discussions are carried forward from week to week in a vain attempt to stir up interest. For example, various features of the Gettysburg battlefield were recently taken to AFD in a spree and, in most cases, such as McMillan Woods, I am the only editor to have responded. In other cases, such as Patoli no-one has responded at all. In such circumstances, it is good to stimulate discussion and Northamerica1000 is to be praised for his vigour and energy in doing so. Warden (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing 1) any cause for administrator action, or 2) any allegation that the encyclopedia has been harmed by the presence or use of the rescue template. This seems like an entirely unimproved discussion vs. the last N+1 times it has happened. However I will admit that I have had my own suspicions that NorthAmerica1000 is actually a returning sockpuppet of one of the community-banned hyper-inclusionists, whose names will readily come to the minds of those who've been around the ARS debates for a while... Jclemens-public (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is my first and only Wikipedia account. Your suspicions are incorrect in this case. I'm not another person that you may be thinking about, in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's fair to publicly accuse people of sockpuppetry without providing any supporting evidence. If you have good reasons for thinking Northamerica1000 is a returned banned user, this is not the place. You know the way to WP:SPI. Reyk _YO! 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between a suspicion and an accusation. I am perfectly capable of running an SPI, but have not done so as the evidence for such is not sufficient. You tell me, though: Do you think NorthAmerica1000's editing pattern reminds you of any of the folks in question? If so, then you know where I'm coming from. If not, then my suspicion is unshared and can be appropriately disregarded. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's disgusting that a member of ArbCom can so blatantly and flippantly drop unsubstantiated innuendo like that, myself. As soon as you go mouthing off your "suspicions" in a public forum like this, they become "accusations." Please apologize or resign your post. Carrite (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused as to what purpose {{rescue}} actually even serves. Do the articles tagged with this template merit saving over ones that are not tagged? Surely, if an article can be proven to meet GNG, the ARS member will be better served finding the reliable sources and dumping them on AfD, rather than tagging the article with the template and getting meaningless "keep" votes? —Dark 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rescue" as it is being used, does nothing that AfD doesn't already do: draw attention to articles in trouble. One might argue that "rescue" could be used to save articles before their nomination for deletion, but we have numerous other tags for that already. As it is currently used, "Rescue" is used almost exclusively to canvass editors intent on disrupting a routine and useful process - one that helps maintain Wikipedia's credibility: deleting articles that fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it creates both a local notification and a centralized list of articles that at least one editor in good standing believes can and should be improved. Not just "kept", but improved such that a keep outcome can be made more evident. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hadn't heard about the ARS before, but I can report on my recent encounter with them. I nominated this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines, specifically stating that reliable 3rd party sources are lacking. Northamerica came in, added three poor quality references (two primary sources and one questionable mention), a rescue tag, and voted keep. Not much later, DreamFocus, another ARS member, came in to add a keep vote. I find it hard to believe that Northamerica (with 35000 edits in half a year, and plenty active in AfD) doesn't know that primary sources are not useful to establish notability. Adding such sources by an experienced editor looks a bit disruptive to me. Cannot we expect that experienced members of the ARS should know better than most of us what kind of sources are reliable and needed to establish notability? It is not so much the use of rescue template that is a problem, but adding very low quality sources and then consider the article "rescued" and vote "keep", that is bothersome.
  

While I do not think that Northamerica is using the rescue template with a deliberate intention of canvassing (agf here), I do think the members of that project are well aware that putting on this rescue tag has some "unintended votestacking effect" in certain cases. And that's what we see in several of the mentioned examples. I would be more convinced of Northamerica's good intention in all this, if he just aknowledged that this can become a problem (as we saw in Sesame Street rumors AfD, where several ARS members came in to add their Keep vote after him). NA himself could step in there and point out that too many ARS members are voting keep, pointing them to their own project guidelines that advise against just voting rather than improving/rescuing. Now it is only normal that this activity raises eyebrows. If NA agrees, then all we need to do is wonder how to solve this problem. Personally I would do away with the rescue template. It serves no purpose that is not already served by the existing tags that can be put on any article. The ARS can do its job just as well without this rescue template. They can go through the list of AfD just like all of us. The rescue tag has become nothing but a "canvassing-light" tool. We don't need to punish editors for using a template that has been accepted or at least tolerated by the community up to now. We can just do away with the problematic (and unnecessary) template. I would just hope that in the future the members of ARS bring proper quality sources if they want to rescue an article, and that they also consider "merge" or "rename" as possible votes which also "rescue" the content of the article, but not necessarily in the form of a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The cherry picked examples prove nothing. One could easily pick stacks of counter examples demonstrating considerable improvement by Squad members. E.g. Kinetic architecture, which is now one of our finest and most attractive short articles. In future, if admins want to start threads against excellent content building editors, please can they keep their irrelevant, nasty, judgemental opinions about who they "dislike" to themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bans are not things to be lightly imposed, and the evidence that wrong-doing has occurred is thin at best. I suggest you try an RFC/U on that editor if you feel strongly that the community would find his acts sufficiently objectionable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this transparent attempt to shackle a productive editor. Lena Cruz was kept, how is that a misuse? CallawayRox (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment– Here's an example of how I used the rescue template in the Kashless.org article, the revision history for the page. Notice how I first found reliable sources and added them to the article, and then based upon the existence of reliable sources, decided that the topic was notable per WP:GNG guidelines, at that point adding the rescue tag. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have done no wrong. Perhaps this section of the discussion should be renamed to "Following instructions for the use of a template"– Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the {{rescue}} template, despite following instructions for the use of the template. No personal offense is intended here toward the creator of this discussion. The very initial wording of the discussion is inaccurate and problematic, because it is a synthesis that mis-characterizes and typecasts me as a canvasser, simply by adding a template to an article, a template that any Wikipedia user can use. WP:CANVASS doesn't pertain to the addition of templates to articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Lastly, to address the following comment stated by the creator of this discussion:

"All of this is actually an improvement over his previous typical drive-by {{rescue}} tagging [9], none of which received any improvement during the taging that would save it from AFD, but it's clear the tag is being used to canvass !votes rather than to improve."

Notice how I made improvements to each and every (accessible) article that is listed in this link above. (I can't access the Edvin Hebovija link, because it was deleted.) This was not "drive-by" tagging whatsoever. Part of the use of the rescue template is to notify other Article rescue squadron members about topics that are perceived to actually be notable which are nominated for deletion from Wikipedia. Notice how all of the examples except one resulted in the article's being retained on Wikipedia. Use of the rescue tag in each of these articles was entirely congruent with the tags instructions at WP:RESCUETAG. It is a mis-characterization to refer to correct use of the rescue template as "typical drive-by rescue tagging", and inappropriate to state my actions as such. Again, I didn't create the instruction set for use of the template, I just abide by them.

Perhaps this administrative user who created this discussion should focus their efforts upon working to obtain consensus to change the actual instructions for use of the template, rather than singling me out and providing examples which actually show correct use of the template. Perhaps the creator of this discussion didn't read the instructions for use of the rescue template prior to creating this discussion. There is no stipulation that once a rescue tag has been added to an article, the person who placed it is then obligated to only work on that one article. Also, per common sense, I'm not responsible for whether or not other users contribute to a tagged article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose– I shouldn't be banned from placing any template in good faith on Wikipedia articles. All of my personal uses of the {{Rescue}} template have been in accordance with the instructions for use of the template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the past, I have noticed that Northamerica does not comply with the instructions: "As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and benefit our readers." He will slap on the tag but with no indication in the AfD discussion as to why. I once approached him on this on his Talk page, and, as I recall, he removed my comment. Because he didn't comply with the template's instructions, I removed the template. If anyone insists on diffs for all this, I suppose I can go back in history to find them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of this discussion may have a conflict of interest an ulterior motive, against ARS

The creator of this discussion has expressed an opinion about the Article rescue squadron itself in their delete vote at the templates for discussion page Here.

"Obvious delete Not rationale can be presented for keeping. There are two keep arguments, 1) That it brings editors attention to an AFD. However, so does an AFD tag. 2) That it notifies the ARS project just like any other project. However, no other project has a biased "keep" from the get-go. See "audience" under WP:CANVASS. This template's purpose is to turn the tide of an AFD by creating a centralized location for inclusionist editors to scream "OH MY GOD, WE'LL LOOK KILOBYTES OF PRECIOUS DATA"!" --v/r - TP 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may have been based upon the creator's personal opinions, rather than violation of Wikipedia policies. It also doesn't seem that the individual referred to instructions for use of the template prior to beginning this discussion. The creator of this discussion believes that the Article rescue squadron is biased, based upon their statement above. Due to this professed opinion about ARS, it conversely appears that the rationale for the creation of this discussion may be based upon their personal opinion of ARS as a whole. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another, in response to a Keep !vote on the same page:

"Keep: The template has clearly served the goal of improving the encyclopedia over the years, which should be the highest priority and trump other concerns." —Torchiest talkedits 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"I doubt your assertion "improving the encyclopedia". I think the overabundance of crap topics that get saved by ARS hurts the encyclopedia's credibility."--v/r - TP 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Signed— Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is. That's when someone trusted to be impartial stands to gain personally by favouring one option over another. It's not when someone expresses the same opinion in two different places. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I entirely understand conflict of interest. The person who singled me out and has proposed that I be corrected for doing no wrong has some bias against the Article rescue squadron and the existence of the rescue template. To make it clearer for you, I've striked-out part of the section, and renamed it to, "an ulterior motive, against ARS". There is a conflict of interest in this case. The editor that placed my name here has motives against the Article rescue squadron WikiProject and article rescue in general. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Objectivity (journalism). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, that's the best you got? I laugh at you.--v/r - TP 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Significant Moderate bias concerns. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Rescue. This administrator may have problems correctly interpreting General notability guidelines (WP:GNG, et al.), and has stated that topics that pass WP:GNG are unworthy for publishing in Wikipedia, referring to them as "crap topics." Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not paper. I don't laugh at such concerns. However, I don't have any personal problem with you, as we haven't even ever met personally. Wikipedia is just one aspect of the world, it's not a medium to judge others in personally. Peace to you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Pooh. A lot of topics that are kept at Wikipedia are indeed "crap topics". That doesn't mean that an editor who refers to them as such has any problem interpreting WP:GNG. First, GNG is a guideline, not a policy, and an article can be deleted if it arguably meets WP:GNG. Second, at AfD, we are guided by the notability guidelines, but the decision is made by consensus. What you really mean is that TP doesn't agree with you. So what else is new?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Topic notability is based upon guidelines, to avoid the interjection of subjectivity regarding topics that should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia. What if these "crap topics" the individual mentions are actually notable per guidelines? Should there be a dictatorship denying readers this content, based upon their subjective opinions? No. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What admin action is being asked for here?

None that I can see. Section should be re-closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why there is this constant hurry to close this section? It was already closed and re-opened yesterday. There was clearly some kind of "incident" being reported. And there is a request to ban an editor from using the rescue tag. More than a few editors have weighed in on it already. Can't you just let this run its normal course? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banning discussions are supposed to take place on AN. Here, we ask admins to take specific actions for specific incidents. What admin actions are being requested?, because the banning discussion is, frankly, a farce, and motivated by ideology rather than facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why have these noticeboards become so fragmented? This is utterly confusing and impractical. Why not have one complaints noticeboard and let the admins put category tags on it as they see fit? The person who opened this section started by reporting an incident, didn't he? If the ensuing discussion crosses the lines into the territory of one of 20something other noticeboards, then is that his fault?

There is often something funny going on. If a certain discussion continues in one place, then after a while somebody will point out that it belongs on AN and not AN/I. But if the person who started the section opens related topics on other noticeboards, then he may get accused of forum shopping. That's a convenient catch 22. How is any new or even reasonably experienced editor supposed to make sense of that? And now you can probably tell me that this is something that should be discussed in yet another place. Yes, thank you. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is it you want an admin to do? This is not B&M central, it's an admin's notice board to draw the attention of admins to a problem so they can use their tools to correct it. What do you want them to do? Block someone? Protect an article? Delete something? Just what, exactly, is being requested? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (see top of page). I agree board discipline broke down in 2011, if not earlier, but it's a systematic problem. Nobody Ent 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my job to say what an admin is supposed to do? I am merely in the role of a witness here, and I should tell the admins what they should do? Somebody else started this section and again somebody else put in some kind of ban request. I am not even supporting the ban request as you can see in my comment. But is it up to one person to decide that this ban request will not succeed and hence close this early? You ask me "what is being requested" and next you try to close this with the message "request will not succeed". Well, then there must be some request, isn't it? And there are already some votes on that request. I find it strange that there is such a hurry to close this section (for the second time). MakeSense64 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI's function changed to include general discussion at least as early as last March Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study. Nobody Ent 11:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Bell_Pottinger Nobody Ent 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made a very specific request regarding this group. Their tendency to flood any AfD of a tagged article can really only be seen as canvassing. You may think they have a "good" purpose, but I am sure every group that seeks to game the system believes they have a "good" purpose. What matters are the results. I honestly do not see how banning this or that user from using the template is going to change much. Getting rid of the tag may be more helpful, but as long as the group has some way to rally its members to an article on AfD the result will remain the same. I do recognize that the principle of the group is great. That is why I suggested barring members of the group from commenting on AfDs if an article has been tagged. Doing that means they keep their tag and their group, while we don't get them bombarding an AfD with keep votes so they can actually focus on improving an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the reward for doing the work of improvement would be that you don't get a say in the matter while idlers who do nothing can vote to delete your hard work!? Apart from being a perverse incentive this is still not a specific request for admin action. Warden (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that someone with an interest in improving the project be banned from discussing improvements runs contrary to policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so dramatic. The reality is that without barring them from discussion on AfD, the project will forever by a vehicle for canvassing no matter who gets banned or blocked in the interim. Either the group is disbanded or it is barred from getting involved directly in the AfD. From what I can see, those are the only two ways to stop the group from being used to canvass articles in favor of the inclusionist perspective. That the group's page says it is not about voting keep is irrelevant if all the people who are part of the group are free to vote keep anyway and no one intends to stop it. Might as well tell members not to shove beans up their noses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion implies that admins count heads rather than weigh AFD discussion merits per guideline and policy. And choosing to impune 400 members of an entire project because of perceived actions of a very few is also unhelpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically appealing to the way Wikipedia should be, rather than dealing with the reality of how Wikipedia actually works. Admins do, inevitably, act based on votes. Expecting them to evaluate the value of each individual claim and then balancing those claims with value against policy while figuring out how consensus applies is expecting admins to essentially decide for themselves whether each article is worthy of being kept or not. Sometimes there are indeed good and obvious reasons to discount votes, but it is not always easy to suss out. Also, I have a feeling if admins start ignoring an overwhelming number of keep votes because they are from ARS members there will be cries of "bloody murder" by editors like Dream (as has been the case if you look at that editor's user page), regardless of whether said members offered valuable arguments or not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments I've posted regarding this matter, directly above the "Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue" section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. Deletionists are wasting everyone's time...as usual. So, rather than improving articles, you have yourselves another fine (ha!) discussion about nothing. Way to go! Pyp! --WR Reader (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An RfC/U for NorthAmerica strikes me as the appropriate thing to do. I also think that the ARS tag is a kind of canvassing, though--it's the very categorization and the listing on the ARS page that bothers me. But behaviorally speaking, I think a case can be made for an RfC here. The problem with NA, besides the walls of text and the wikilawyering, is the amount of utterly trivial 'references' they add, claiming that just about every fart is notable cause it was reported on in the Okefenokee Monthly. This discussion here will not go anywhere, however, and should be closed. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Northamerica's tagging does bug me. North tagged an article for rescue because of one book (significant coverage) and two download pages saying that sources do exist. I'm not sure if he really believes that download pages help show notability together with the book source. SL93 (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

An issue with an individual editor is better resoved by dealing with that editor and not taking an entire project to task. However, perception IS everything, and as much as there has been some really good work performed by its members in actually improving articles, the ARS refrained from setting up a hierarchy to oversee itself or guide its members. Lacking guidence, we thus have repeated ANIs about over-active members and MFDs about templates and their usage.

But "perception" IS definitely addressable. As the editors who were part of its original inception and design have gone on to other pursuits, it seems that NA1K has single-handedly and in good faith tried to tweak the project page for many months.[10] And while I have avoided editing the project page, I think by being a bit bold and making the project page itself more formal and neutral will be of help in underscoring to its members that they should be proactive in improvements.

I dislike suggesting the setting up a hierarchy, but ARS essentially lacks guidence. I think serious consideration should be given toward there being at ARS, just as with other projects, coordinators who help set a moderate and constructive tone. See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposal for ARS Project page redesign. I request and will respect input toward my proposal, but feel a bit of personal boldness in setting a more sturctured and moderate ARS will be of value to continued improvement of the encyclopedia. Opinions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name. Perception is an issue, but "rescue" creates a certain mentality. How about Article Improvement Team? That said, there seems to be genuine concern above that more than one member seems to be simply going to articles and saying keep without improving the article or by making trivial improvements that don't address the issues. Despite the utopian view of AfD that we like to pretend to have, most admins do seem to just do a head count and 3 or 4 people could sway a lot of AfDs like that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A name change is something I had been myself considering. Revamping the ARS will need to entail the creation of a hierarchy (ouch!) of those willing to accept the responsibility of leading through example. Won't happen overnight, no... but definitely do-able, and well worth the effort.

I disagree that improper closes are performed by "most admins"... as an improper close is a matter for WP:DRV, and any admin who repeatedly closes AFDs improperly has their edits under close scrutiny and placed their admin tools at risk. Remember, WP:ANI is not only for non-admin-related issues... admins can be brought to task here just as can any other editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARS members do a lot of good and the ARS is a good thing in itself. The point at which group needed co-ordination, or at that very least a plan to get things back on track has been, gone and disappeared from the rear-view mirror. At times in the past the group's message board has looked like an open house for those with a grievance due to some deletion process or another to come and have a whinge. Sometimes a romanticized view is presented of the ARS being a small group of battered soldiers huddling in a trench, valiantly guarding WP's content against a huge army of 'deletionists' who would tear it to ribbons. See comments on the rescue tag's deletion discussion for a couple of examples. It's not that the ARS necessarily encourages or even shares these views, but these are voices which shout loud and this paranoid and hostile vision is presented to potential members of the squadron. It isn't helped by the Squadron's underselling of itself, even in the limited area of my own interest I see numerous editors who would be of benefit to the ARS and perform the same tasks Squadron members do, but aren't being invited to join. Having members who specialize in different subjects and who agree to watch them would take the weight off other members and (hopefully) reduce the feeling that everyone has to check everything or else we'll lose perfectly good content every day. Wikipedians with good access to sources would also be a boon, as they could be approached if more readily accessible sources are not available. New blood, efficient deletion patrol, less feeling of backs against the wall. It's always been doable but someone has to roll their sleeves up. I wish you all the best. Someoneanother 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "it's just this one editor" but that just plain isn't true. First of all, I have repeatedly mentioned another editor, Dream, who similarly pushes an agenda blatantly and I notice you have repeatedly defended retaining the rambling anti-deletionist screed that is Dream's userpage. Second, one can look and see that North is far from the only editor who has used the ARS as a canvassing group for inclusionists. In fact, on the inclusionist wikiproject, one of the suggestions for how to help the cause is to join the Article Rescue Squadron and sends people directly to articles that have been tagged. That wasn't even placed by a member of ARS from what I can tell, it was just someone in the inclusionist project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be clear, this ANI began by you describing your interarctions with one editor and his use of a rescue template, included your discussion of three keeps at an AFD that appeared to be drive-bys responding to the rescue tag, your concerns that their not folowing instruction on the ARS page gave thier "per NA1k" keeps an appearance of a template being "canvassing", went on to impune an entire project of 400 members based upon your interactions with NA1K, used Dream Focus and his user page as an example of "inclusionist agenda-warrior behavior", and then based upon your opening statements, your summary suggested that "the only feasible way to stop this kind of activity without getting rid of the group altogether is to explicitly restrict anyone in this group from getting involved in AfDs and limiting them explicitly by policy to only editing the article itself when it is nominated for deletion."

I do not see a topic-ban preventing 400 editors from involving themself in AFD discussion simply because they are members of a project wishing to improve content for the project, as particuarly useful nor as a method to improve Wikipedia. If you have issues with the behavior of one or two or three or four editors, mount ANIs against them. But an blanket ban of an entire project based upon perceived issues with less than 2 percent of that project?? Massive overkill. Your desired outcome as stated in your opening, is to topic-ban 400 editors when perhaps 380 or 390 of them have never had dealings with you. Wrong queue.

My proposal as above was brought forth as a means to address perceived issues through education and guidence in a project lacking that guidence. If you do not think issues can be addressed through education and guidence, fine... and thank you for your underscoring your issues with a minority. But I am seeking input from editors who might feel as I do that your solution to topic-ban 400 editors is perhaps a bit of overkill. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, my suggestion was to serve as an alternative to disbanding the group altogether. The way you quote my comment about Dream's behavior is as telling as your past arguments against deleting Dream's userpage. I sincerely doubt anyone objective could look over the exhaustive rhetoric on Dream's page and not come away with the same impression I got. Both North and Dream have sought to entrench that agenda-warrior mentality explicitly in the group itself. You keep implying this is isolated, but it really isn't. North and Dream seem to be two of the editors most regularly involved in the wikiproject's activities. Quite a large number of those 400 editors are inactive, with most of the remainder being less active than North and Dream. Their actions are inevitable given this group's existence, the way it draws attention specifically to articles facing deletion, and its freedom to be involved in voting on AfDs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he won't take my word for it, can someone please educate Serge Woodzing concerning WP:NLT? This comment seems to about as close to a legal threat without actually saying "I will sue you" (referring to "slander" and a "public forum" and such).--Atlan (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threat intended, just a request to strike what I find very embarrassing.

Vindictive and frivolous Frivolous posting here. Just an excuse to post on my talk page again, though h/s has been asked 3 times not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SergeWoodzing on this. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What vindication do I get from this? I do not appreciate my comments being called slanderous and said he should avoid such terms. Noticing the other comment, I decided to post here, but if it's alright to say so then I apparently misinterpret WP:NLT.--Atlan (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you be vindicated for being uncivil and for wasting our time on ANI with a frivolous complaint? Rklawton (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the question. I asked because the post was called vindictive, not because I expect any kind of vindication. Please point out in what way was I uncivil, by the way.--Atlan (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In that case, the answer to your question is obvious. Rklawton (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking because I thought you might be mistaking me for User:Alarbus, who the above comment in my first post was directed at.--Atlan (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Vindictive" stricken. Case of mistaken identity due to similar names. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For what it's worth, I agree with your response to Alarbus (except for the use of legal language of course). You don't have to take that lying down. But it seemed to me pointing out WP:NLT to you myself had the reverse effect.--Atlan (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Words You Can Never Say on Wikipedia: Slander, Libel, Lawyer, Lawsuit, Sue, Court, Defamation. Try to avoid any language like that in a dispute with someone. -- Atama頭 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true in general. It's only true when an editor invokes those terms in an effort to intimidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot "TRENTON" and "NEW JERSEY".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"nobody comes back from Trenton knowing anything more than when he went"—Franklin Knight Lane.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Hoboken" might qualify too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the diff & I see no direct or indirect legal threat made. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're reading the wrong diff: "Just to inform you cordially, that is directly slanderous as given in any public forum, even when used against somebody's alias." That's more than sufficient to give another editor the understanding that a legal threat is implied. There is no other reason for mentioning slander. --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Slander" is a legal term. Especially in the diff I provided, it can be seen as a legal threat. I am satisfied with Serge's answer that he didn't mean it that way, but I would caution against further use of the term. That's all I asked for.--Atlan (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An introduction like "Just to inform you cordially" only adds threatening vague legal tone. Mr. Woodzing's club "Honor Watch" once sent me a letter by mail to my home address with legal advice. That was over a year ago, I am just adding this as background information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read this before anyone replied to this thread and same to a similar conclusion. Even if it was not intended as a legal threat, it comes across as a possible one. I suggest SergeWoodzing clarify that it is not a legal threat and consider the guidance provided here on how to avoid a repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kuiper's input is misleading, just intended to smudge me in this discusssion, and includes untrue material (so what else is new?). There is no connection whatsoever between me and the "Honor Watch" organization.

Thank you to the rest of you for all your other helpful comments! I have already stated above that no legal threat was intended (some of you seem to have missed that). I have taken the ultimate advice given here to heart and feel very close to being blocked, so if that was the objective, it worked. Sometimes we all need reminders as to how Wikipedia works and doesn't work. Next time someone subjects me or anyone else I see to mud-slinging such as what Serge Woodzing intended was to call us "Degos", I will be more careful in responding. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The objective was to get you to stop using words such as slander so casually, not to get you blocked.--Atlan (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I was using it "casually" at the time, but I know now that I shouldn't use it under any circumstances, no matter how gross any kind of denigrating accusations might be against me or other users. Thank you for your opinion about the objective here! It would be very nice if one of the administrators would agree with you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at this? When 20 editors vote in an RM, I would expect it get an administrative closure. This was closed by an editor who openly voted in the discussion he closed. Kauffner (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better of course, if an uninvolved party had closed the discussion, although that's sometimes hard to find in these move discussions. Do you think it's likely this would change the outcome though? Otherwise we might as well leave it.--Atlan (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth I would have closed it the same way and I have no horse in the race so its probably not worth making a hassle over. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the closure. It was an inappropriate closure, and I can see the argument made that it should go the other way, not withstanding the vote count. Let's wait for an uninvolved editor to close this. NW (Talk) 16:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was my fault. I had posted User talk:Eusebeus#Your call for resolution, including by my oversight the incorrect statement You have merely posted the call, without having prejudiced yourself in argument. I apologize to Eusebeus and all others involved for my error. However I do believe that my post at his userpage otherwise accurately describes the situation. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this please consider that the discussion was only necessary because a previous Requested move was closed as a "consensus" with 2:1 participants. We are not talking about a move, but about restoring what should not have been moved in the first place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an uninvolved admin please close this issue one way or another? NW undid the closure and protected the page but that means the issue is still open and needs resolution. The debate is two weeks old now and there are several screenfuls of votes and comments associated with the proposal. THanks.DavidRF (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, this issue appears at first glance to revolve around policy concerning WP:UCN, and might seem relatively straightforward in that respect. However reading through the lengthy discussion shows, first, the important distinction made between "common names" as opposed to "nicknames", and the point made that "Moonlight Sonata" is a nickname rather than a common name as understood by the WP:UCN guideline and examples.

Second, it should be noted that an entirely different strategy having nothing to do with common names has been used twice, but unsuccessfully both times, to move the Beethoven Piano Sonatas to different article titles, either wholesale all at once, or failing that, one at a time, apparently based on sonata titles as printed on one specific CD set:

• Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move; and following immediately below,
• Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move: Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) → Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 2, posted by the same movant who has brought this request to your attention now.

As Gerda Arendt has pointed out, this has been a long ongoing problem, with Sonata No. 14 being so far the only "victory" in getting a move approved, and that simply by a fluke due to no one having been aware of the proposal before it was accepted. To build on this single success, it was then followed up by another failed effort, at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven)#Requested move. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, an uninvolved admin closed the discussion, the same way as the "involved" one had done. This could be closed as well, if you ask me. We learned. I would prefer to create content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was closed in favor of Support by Mkativerata. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2010, a posthumous album of Michael Jackson material was released called Michael.
• There is a content dispute over whether this album should count as a studio album or a compilation album. This dispute has lasted for a year now. It is very WP:LAME.
• Both sides have edit-warred.
• There are frequent accusations of vandalism against those favoring one side of the content dispute, and editors repeatedly leave harassing notices on their user talk pages threatening they're going to be blocked. (Of course, edit-warring is blockable offense, but it takes two to edit-war.)
• I'm not so much concerned with content dispute itself, it's WP:LAME. But what does concern me is the edit-warring, harrassment, and false accusations of vandalism.

This has been going on and off for a year now. Today, there was yet another flare up. I'm not really too sure what to do about it. Maybe lock the article and give warnings? Please see the following discussions for the latest flare-ups.[12][13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ban all the offending edit-waring users from the article (or just from making any changes to the contentious bit). They can discuss it, or go to dispute resolution. Amy more changes after that, block them. The problem with protection, is they'll just return when it expires.--Scott Mac 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the editor who are edit-warring do make legitimate and valid contributions to other parts of the article, so I wouldn't like to see them article-banned, but a ban on the contentious issue would be fine. It's literally over whether the album is a studio or compilation album.

Also, I just discovered that one of the editors in the recent flare-up, Barts1a has an editing restriction that prohibits them from editing noticeboards. I didn't know about this and I've posted something on Barts1a's mentor's talk page.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources categorize this album? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been going on for a while, but there is very clear consensus that this should be described as a compilation album, not a studio album. See here. WilliamH (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugs: I don't want to confuse content issues with conduct issues, but to answer your question, there are no secondary sources that we can find which explicitly categorize it as studio or compilation album. Most of the arguments on the talk page basically try to devine what an article means if it uses the word "studio" or "complation"/"compiled" somewhere in its text, or whether Jackson intended these songs to be released as an album. There is a primary source which does explicitly categorize it as a studio, but there are objections because it is a primary source.

In any case, I see that WilliamH has blocked one of the edit-warriors. Of course, it takes two to edit war, so let's see what he does with the other editor warriors and the more serious issues of harrassment and false accusations of vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, if a fact can't be sourced then it shouldn't be included. It's not up to wikipedia users to determine what a fact should be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Ahmedunbreakabletato for 24 hours. Given that his edits have completely ignored this consensus for around a year and even an SPI case was filed, I am frankly amazed that that was his first block. As for other editors, their conduct certainly leaves a bit to be desired; on the other hand, if Barts1a is not allowed to edit noticeboards, it is not in the slightest bit surprising that this situation has unfolded. His etiquette leaves a lot to be desired, but he is right to undo edits that disregard consensus. Given that this has gone on for long, it's perhaps not surprising that people are construing "studio" edits as vandalism. They're not constructive, but they're meant in good faith and describing them as vandalism is not helpful. WilliamH (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamH: I've been watching this content dispute for a year now. You might not know this, but these asymmetrical blocks have been tried before but the basic problem remains unresolved. In fact, these asymmetrical blocks just make the problem worse, because one side of the dispute knows that they can edit-war to their heart's content with impunity. They frequently accuse and harass their opponents, again, with impunity. I came to this board because I'd like something done about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And exactly the right thing has been done: the enforcement of consensus. This would not have been protracted into a year-long edit war if the consensus had been originally upheld. WilliamH (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A content dispute does not require admin intervention, unless edits are constantly being made which do not reflect current consensus. One editor has been blocked as a result of not respecting it, and editorial/non-admin measures have been taken to remind editors that their edits must reflect established consensus and that they should support their changes by finding a level of mutual agreement among other editors. I'm very disappointed that your original message completely omitted the current consensus. WilliamH (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamH: Consensus is a discussion, not a vote. I didn't mention the vote for a couple reasons. First, it was flawed. Among other things, the vote was closed[16] by someone involved in the discussion[17]. Second, and much more importantly, I don't care about the content dispute. I already said that I think it's WP:LAME. I think I was very clear on that. What does concern me are the conduct issues: edit-warring, harassment and false accusations of vandalism. Are you going to do anything about that or just turn a blind eye? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I've no idea why it's labelled as one, but it's clearly not a vote and to dismiss it out of semantics like that is ridiculous. I have at no point suggested that Barts1a's behaviour is acceptable, and warned him that it isn't. I don't dispute that Moxy shouldn't have closed the discussion, although it apparently wouldn't have affected the outcome. The fact remains that there is a clear measure of agreement among editors on the compilation/studio issue. If you do not accept this because of its validity, or that it does not reflect consensus since that discussion, either stop ignoring it, or start a new one. WilliamH (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamH: I already told you - several times, in fact - that I don't care about the content dispute. My concern was with the methods being used to win the dsipute: edit-warring, false claims of vandalism and harassment. I see that you have cautioned one of the editors about false accusations vandalism at their talk page.[18] What about the other editors? What about the harassment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have observed this for longer than I have, feel free to bring forward other editor's behaviour - I'm willing to comment on it/warn/block as appropriate. And it's not indifference for the content that's the issue, it's the lack of concern for/implementation of the given consensus around it. Not enforcing it is to not tell two opposing armies that their generals have signed an armistice. WilliamH (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the content dispute aspect of this is concerned, the volunteers at WP:DRN do a good job at helping editors work through disagreements in a structured fashion;I suggest raising the issue there. Nobody Ent 12:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Aren't there better things that people can be doing with their time? Throw this dispute on WP:LAME, WP:TROUT all individuals involved, and have a couple admins watch the page. False accusations of vandalism (ZOMG YOU CHANGED THE PAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS) need to be met with blocks. As for whether it's a "compilation" or a "studio" album does it actually matter? It's a bunch of songs. How about we call it a "Michael Jackson Album" and be done with it. N419BH 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is already suggested, I'll be keeping an eye on the page. WilliamH (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by Guy Macon over at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout, we've managed to...erm, fumble one of our most serious questions in this poll. The full blackout option was not available when the poll began, and it's undoubtedly developing into a major issue at this point. We need to quickly contact all those participating in the section en masse with a request for clarification of their position while there's still time for them to respond.   — C M B J   13:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking the operator of Thehelpfulbot. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes the bot can send out messages to any user talk page - all I need is a list of users and the message to give them. Thanks, The Helpful One 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so from what you said in your first post, I used AWB to get all the blue links on the page, I then filtered out to just include User: and User talk: name space, I converted all the User: space links into User talk: links and removed all duplicates. This gives a list of 312 user talk pages to post a message to. Is this the full list of users that you'd like to leave a message for? Best, The Helpful One 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a manually harvested list that includes affected participants and excludes those who expressed clear support for a soft blackout. As for message content, a simple one- or two-liner summarizing the situation will suffice.   — C M B J   15:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll convert those into user talk pages. As with regards to the message, could you provide me with exactly what you would like it to say - although I've been following SOPA, I've not been keeping an eye on it in as much detail as perhaps you have. I imagine the heading would be something like "Your input needed on SOPA", but what exactly would you like them to do? Thanks, The Helpful One 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better that someone uninvolved compose the message, but the general idea of the solicitation here is to seek clarification from those who supported the measure at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout before Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Full blackout came to be an option. Some of the folks in the above list expressed views that should rightfully be in the latter tally, and many others simply signed (and continue to sign) without distinguishing a preference between the two.

As a side note, we should probably do something at the bottom of that first section to prevent further use; perhaps some commented out cautions and a new "soft blackout" subsection below it. We've already got two more to add to the list: Fylbecatulous and 71.175.53.239.   — C M B J   15:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the message I propose ^ any suggestions for improvement? The Helpful One 15:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added as soon as possible because of time nature of message. The Helpful One 16:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's my take on it.   — C M B J   16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yours is better, I was trying to think of a way to write about the soft blackout but I couldn't find the section on the page, I'll start sending the messages now. Best, The Helpful One 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.   — C M B J   16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The Helpful One 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add me to the list if possible. ty — Ched :  ?  16:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The Helpful One 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this clarification enough, or am I expected to move my !vote to #Soft_blackout portion of the page? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since tons of germans, only occasionally contributing to enw.p, re among the participants, i took care of issuing a note on the correction-note on en.wp-user discussion pages of early participants from de.wp there as well. thx for initiating the correction, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derpherpes uses what I consider standard Holocaust denier tactics at talk: Holocaust. The account was created yesterday, and the user seem to have no other interests - at least he has no constructive edit so far. I tend to simply block him, but would like to see some additional opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have arguing with this user ((AmblinX (talk · contribs)) back and forth about him/her adding trivial information about the age difference between two actresses on the television series Last Man Standing. I have asked he/she to start a discussion on the talk page but he he/she has refused. The person has even accused me of vandalism for removing the content and "warned" me about it, me, a six-year Wikipedian. Can an administrator speak to this person, please. QuasyBoy 19:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. You were supposed to notify AmblinX when you posted here about him.

2. Both of you are edit-warring, and if you don't stop you likely will be blocked.

3. That is a lame edit war.

-- Donald Albury 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AmblinX notified, 3rr warnings to both and calling a ANI request lame isn't helpful. Just ignore it if don't want to assist. Nobody Ent 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked before and I will not be because of this person. I already aware that I reverted twice within the last few hours. AmblinX seems like he/she has been burned on Wikpedia before and is on this "I'm gonna take it anymore" emotional trip. Lastly, this is a very lame edit war, couldn't agree more. QuasyBoy 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I already reported the problem with user QuasyBoy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring
Also I warned the user at his talk page, about reverting other users valid edits on an article.
Reverting or deleting valid information because of personal choice is against the wikipedia rules.
For example: It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism or violations of the BLP policy) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting
User QuasyBoy is deleting valid information because of personal taste in other article too, I did everything I could to warn him about his behavior.
I at every moment of this incident always complied with the wiki rules.

Link from the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuasyBoy#Disruptive_editing_on_Last_Man_Standing_.28U.S._TV_series.29
 AmblinX  20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is literally the lamest thing I've ever seen. And not just on wikipedia, I mean in my entire life. Edit warring for edit warring's sake. I would suggest that QasyBoy has a mild ownership issue with this article: is it really so important that AmblinX's sentence is omitted? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, is it really so important that AmblinX's sentence be included? It is absolute trivia which IMMHO is hardly crucial/useful/important to the project. Oh darn, you like trivia, don't you! Never mind, both already 3RR warned so maybe this incident is about to snuff out anyway.Moriori (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Glad to see there are some editors out there who still do their reading.... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series) I explained why these few words are absolutely relevant and not at all trivial.
In short: this never happened in a sitcom in a long long time, I couldn't even find 1.  AmblinX  22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the user's credit, he has taken the discussion to the talk page and stopped edit warring. However, his most recent comment in the discussion comes up short in the civility department. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least he has a sense of humour, I guess. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is too much to handle. I need some help. He keeps removing notable candidates and replacing them with non-notable ones. I've tried to explain consensus to him but he won't stop. He's doing this across three pages: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, and Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. His talk page shows years of just not getting it. He uses bad references, adds unsourced material, creates pages on non-notable topics, and edit wars. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have a proposal, I might have a second. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT doing that. I've been doing this stuff for years, and have been revising the articles in question with GOOD references and sourced material. For some reason Mr. Saturn wants to list a number of fringe candidates as major ones, and I keep trying to either get rid of them or downgrade them to where they belong. There's no consensus on what is considered "notable" here. In previous elections, a minor candidate was considered "part of the group" if he or she was on the ballot in several states. People like Vance Hartke and Patsy Mink weren't considered "major" candidates, i.e., had no chance of being elected. But they were listed because they were on the ballot in quite a few states. ON the other hand, take a look at Stewart Greenleaf, a Pennsyvania State Senator, who decided to get some local publicity by getting his name on the NH ballot. He told the local paper back home "I'm NOT running for president."Notice the word NOT. If someone says they're not running for something, doesn't that mean they're not running for something? Especially if they're not on the ballot anywhere? Which reminds me, when did Mr. Saturn take over coverage of the 2012 election articles? If you check my page out. I've been on very few of these revert wars, and I generally use good references, and the stuff I generally put up stays.Ericl (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose he be blocked for a short duration. Consensus on the page is for candidates with wikipedia notability to be listed. This has been explained to him, yet he refuses to listen. He is someone that believes Facebook is a reliable source. Should someone editing since 2005 really believe something like that? He obviously has not read wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and time shows that he probably has no intention of doing so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is a reliable source if someone announces something about him/herself on his or her page. When one person states there is a consensus when there is none, it's not exactly to be believed. I've never heard of him before. Could someone please show me where everyone had a consensus on this? I never saw it on any of the discussion pages in question.Ericl (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on several talk page archives. See this for example.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean where you said this?: "Rather you should use "Candidates that participated in debates" and "Other candidates". This will prevent edit wars.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) " That was the consensus and that's what I was trying to do. Each and every one of the minor candidates in NH had local papers print articles on them. I've checked, besides, like I said in another thread, the race has started, which means the rules have changed. There's going to be lots of deleting and reorganizing. If you go to the beginning of the 2008 article (if you can still find it) you will notice how vastly different it is now than when it was in November or December of that year. That's going to happen again this time out. Ericl (talk)

Here is the consensus for the candidates page. As I said, being on the ballot is not completely necessary to be considered a candidate. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was not on any state ballots and yet he was able to win the nomination at the convention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but the rules were different in 1968. Most of the caucuses were in 1967, and they mostly consisted of county committeemen asking who among them wanted to go. We're talking about the rules of the game NOW, and as I said elsewhere, while no one was on the ballot six months ago, now it is different, and barring a death, scandal or criminal indictment, nobody not on the ballot is going to get the nomination. In 1976, if you remember, there was a backlash against Jimmy Carter in the primaries, but it was too late to stop him, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. There was a revolt of sorts at the 1980 convention against him (I was there and I remember it well), but Carter's people whipped everyone good. Look at the 1972 Democratic convention article. They tried to stop McGovern there, but they couldn't. The Republicans were worse on this point, and with the rules now in effect, unless all the anti-Romney candidates withdraw and get a new candidate on the ballot by Super Tuesday, there's just no way anyone not on the ballot anywhere would have a physical chance....Some obscure state senator Pretending to be a candidate might work well before anyone else is on the ballot, but if s/he's not on the ballot anywhere, then s/he's not a candidateEricl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• William, considering the response here (and on my talk page) we have possibly a two-fold issue: lack of competence and unwillingness to listen. The simple convention is to include bluelinks, to not accept Facebook, etc. If someone says "Facebook is an acceptable source for someone's announcement" while completely bypassing notability (by our standards), then one wonders if they should be editing in the first place. (Ericl, you are wrong: we do have "consensus on what is considered 'notable' here.") We could block, but there may not be an immediate threat of disruption, but perhaps a probation (i.e., threat of a block) or a topic ban is in order. I'd like to hear what more experienced admins have to say here, and what you might think of a topic ban or probation. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the point. the point is that some minor candidates who were no longer running, notably Greenleaf, who said he was ONLY running in NH, were deleted. BTW, I am NOT incompetent. If something is buried deep in the archives so that almost no one can find it, there's really no way one can considered something settled. especially if something's in flux as it is.Ericl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for blocks on ANI for a content dispute where there is no consensus isn't appropriate. On Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ and Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ Ericl and WSS are the only editors who have used the talk page this month, and on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 the other editor who commented appears to support Ericl's position. RFC the issue. Nobody Ent 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. There is already consensus for this. As you can see, another editor already reverted Ericl's additions. The issue is competence, and I think Ericl should be blocked until he reads the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and demonstrates that he can edit competently and abide by consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about more recent diffs of what you consider "incompetence"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of his edits to the pages I've linked show incompetence: his failure to follow MOS, his failure to understand consensus, and his failure to understand what constitutes a reliable source; he thinks Facebook is a reliable source. Just look at all the problems posted on his talk page. This is someone who has been editing since 2005, and they still haven't learned how to properly use wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen recent diffs in support of your contentions. Generalized statements like asking us to "look at all the problems posted on his Talk page" aren't a substitute for clear evidence. You also originally stated that he added unsourced material, but I don't see diffs in support of that, either. At worst, based on what you've said so far, it sounds like he may not meet your standard of competence, which is a far cry from being objectively incompetent. You have to justify a block based on recent activity for it to be considered preventative rather than punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I have. I've done hundreds and hundreds of articles. Just because I disagree with you (you still think the 1968 rules are in effect) doesn't mean that I'm incompetent. This is basically a pissing contest (if you'll pardon my French), and Mr. Saturn is throwing a hissy fit. Ericl (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Beetle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was moved to Volkswagen Type 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without consultation. I have requested a page move already but given that this is a long-standing, high-traffic article with a well established WP:COMMONNAME I bring this matter here hoping for a quicker resolution. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Bushranger. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• User: Gizgalasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Articles: Especially, Azerbaijan International, also
  • Ali and Nino: A Love Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Lev Nussimbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kurban Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gizgalasi has admitted to being a member of the research team for Azerbaijan International's series of special articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story (see User Talk:Gizgalasi#Ali and Nino and associated pages). I've been trying to work with the user for the past week or two (see talk page discussions), but the user just isn't getting it. I think the user has almost understood the idea that the AI article is not "theirs", but continues to add promotional links, excessive details, etc., all designed to enhance this article, and, in particular, the special issues xe worked on. As a good example, look at the last sequence of 72 edits on the AI article: [36]. I'm happy to work with a COI editor if they show an understanding of what they can and cannot do; this user does not. Unless someone else wants to step in to mentor/advise, I see no solution other than a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links to 4 websites and 4 Twitter pages from the body of the article Azerbaijan International, but User:Gizgalasi reinserted them. I removed them again with a note on the editor's talk page citing WP:PROMO and a warning not to reinsert them, but other editors should keep on eye on the article. There is a link to the magazine's website in the External Links section of the article, and presumably that site has links to the other websites (if it doesn't, that's not our problem). This single link is sufficient, the addition of 4 other links and the Twitter pages definitely crosses the line into being promotional, especially considering they were posted by an editor with an admitted COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin sort out the mess created by Special:Contributions/Taskstired moving Israeli-occupied territories to Arab-occupied territories please ? I think the article probably needs indefinite move protection and the editor needs to be blocked. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think its sock of Sk8rownot (talk · contribs)--Shrike (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The faster way to deal with such issues is to report them to WP:AIV--Shrike (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move and indeffed Taskstired (talk · contribs). It is not the first account which is made autoconfirmed only for making a clearly controversial article move. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since the move needed to be reverted by an admin because these editors always make an edit to prevent the move being reverted by non-admins, I'm not sure whether tasks like this are within scope of AIV. Should they be listed here or at AIV ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Shrike is right. Each account was editing behind a different proxy, both of which I've blocked. Both accounts were created a long long time ago to evade CheckUser, and I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye. If other accounts resurface, whacking them when they appear and potentially semi-protection will be the most effective way of dealing with this, and please report them to SPI where the underlying IP/proxy can be blocked. WilliamH (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and disruptive editing on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's come to my attention that the same person appears to be back and doing much the same thing on the same article, primarily from 86.145.70.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP has already been warned for edit-warring and 3RR, but note in particular the comment on its talk page: "If this IP address is blocked, we shall move to another IP address." It's probable that the IP editor is the subject of the article; the style of writing (using the majestic plural etc) is very much his, as is the apparent feud with the writer George Monbiot (false information about the latter has previously added to the article [37]). On his previous IPs/accounts he has been advised about WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:V and all the rest but has ignored all such advice. This has now been going on for some weeks. At the very least, the article needs to be semi-protected and some (careful) intervention is needed with the IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having undone IP edits which added badly sourced material and wording contradicted by the cited source, or removed well sourced information, fully agree that the article needs to be semi-protected. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is the 21st century version of a strongly-worded letter to The Times. --NellieBly (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the IPs apparent threat to start removing sources from the article as he sees fit, in response essentially to not getting his way, I think urgent semi-protection is an essential first step. Is there any chance of a check user on the old account to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The protection log on that article is quite lengthy. I've semi-protected indefinitely. However, I wouldn't know a Viscount from a Visigoth, so what state the actual article should be in is up to other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that a rangeblock would be practicable. Looking at the editing history, it seems clear that the IP is a dynamically assigned one from a major UK ISP (BT) and the collateral damage of a rangeblock would be enormous and would far outweigh any benefits.Qwyrxian's indefinite semi-protection should be sufficient, I think. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, your statement that it is 'probably Monckton' is definitely libellous unless you have some form of proof. See WP:BLP. Please remove your statement.

Can someone please make this an autoconfirmed account so I can upload some images I made? Cheers, Gary Dobson & David Norris (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want WP:RFP/C ... and you'll also want to recall the username policy does not permit shared accounts (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this name, which refers to the convicted murderers of Stephen Lawrence, is most unlikely to be unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"unlikely to be unacceptable" :D Gary Dobson & David Norris (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely unacceptable. Username softblocked. Tiderolls 13:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flatulotech (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account used to smear Anwar Ibrahim (who recently was acquitted of sodomy charges in Malaysia) by selectively lifting sources to "prove" Mr Anwar's guilt on Wikipedia. He's been conducting a slow edit war (also by using other anonymous IP accounts) at Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials by pushing material which has been rejected outright by other editors. Questionable edits:

• [38] this one is gold
• [39] misleading paragraph characterizing bits classified information by 3 agencies as proof that "the sodomy charges were accepted as factually justified by foreign intelligence sources"
• [40][41][42][43][44][45]
• 120.151.54.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 203.82.92.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 110.159.4.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 42.241.18.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 114.73.82.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• [46] - unnecessary quotebox to prove his point

The list of diffs provided above shows that Flatulotech is not editing in good faith and should be banned immediately to avoid wasting other editors' energy dealing with his nonsense. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed due to repeated violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT; in short, disruptive editing Wikipedia can do without. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request for administrative intervention is basic. in order to facilitate resolution of what I perceive to be a clear WP:NPOV policy issue, I today elevated my prior Talk:Swiftboating inquiry to formal "Dispute" status with the placement of an associated "POV Section Dispute" tag. Despite my explanation in talk as to the specifics of elevating my objection to formal dispute status, my tag placement was twice reverted by User:Snowded, first with an edit summary "No dispute documented on talk page with sources. Just variants of I Don't like it" and second, with an edit summary "Tagging an article when you are not providing any properly sourced proposals on the talk page is disruptive editing". This is, IMHO, both a specious and contrived misrepresentation of the pertinent WP:NPOV guidance (as I attempted to demonstrate in my talk comments) and, furthermore, a contentious, highly disruptive, wiki-lawyered misrepresentation of WP guidance on the placement of dispute tags and the legitimate exercise of an individual editor's unilateral right to arbitrarily remove another editor's tag prior to consensus resolution of the issue.

Pending administrative review, I am seeking both administrative reinstatement of my POV Section Dispute tag and some determination as to the WP propriety of User:Snowded's editorial conduct. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comments on talk page. No attempt is being made to provide a properly sourced justification for the PoV tag. The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds. This article gets periodic attempts by people who think the Swiftboat veterans position should be represented as valid, when the sources say otherwise. We are in one of those periods, so some more experienced editors would be welcome. Mind you, I hadn't realised just how strongly JakeinJoisey feels about this issue. --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds.

That is erroneous. The tag in question is, contrary to your misrepresentation, a POV Section Dispute tag twice inserted by me and twice deleted by you as opposed to the general POV Article tag placed by another editor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag". You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag. Just changing from the whole article to a section makes no difference to that. Tagging, without properly raising the issue on the talk page (which doesn't mean just saying that you don't like it, or that you think the Kerry campaign would) is disruptive editing. Better to make a proper case and raise a RfC if you feel you are not being listened to. --Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag".

That's a minor concession evading the heart of your misrepresentation. You stated that there were "several editors" who had removed my tag. There were not...just you.

You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag.

Your apparent inability to understand that "sourcing" is irrelevant to the aspect of WP:NPOV guidance at issue here will, hopefully, be rectified at the completion of this exercise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver, my references are to those tags collectively. --Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver,...'

False! I had no part in the placement/removal of the "Article" POV tag and, hence, it has zippo to do with your singular removals of MY legitimately placed Section tag...the subject of this ANI petition. I'll defer any further comments pending the requested administrative determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Jake's tags were removed by involved editors.

No, it is NOT true. My tag (singular) was twice removed by User:Snowded. The legitimacy of those removals is the sole purpose for this ANI petition for administrative determination...not an administrative determination as to the merit of my WP:NPOV objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but I'm requesting a block on User:Boribreizh. His talk page can be found here. He blatantly vandalized pages, deleting entire sections. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki13 reported Boribreizh at WP:AIV: [47] Glrx (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boribreizh blocked 2 days: [48] Glrx (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]