Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was a clear consensus to keep. Snottywong is encouraged, but not required, to rename it to something less inflammatory, as a gesture to help defuse these increasingly pointless and distracting BATTLEs. JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire[edit]

Probably G10'able, but I'd rather have a discussion on this--are editors allowed to malign the efforts of others in such a manner? Does this userbox provide prima facie evidence of bad faith on the author's part in any AfD discussion? Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can we keep it because it made me laugh? ;p ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the creator of this userbox. Admittedly, I see how the wording I chose could lead people to believe that I am admitting to making bad faith !votes in AfD's, however that is not the case and if anyone were motivated enough to delve into my edit history, you will see that I have also voted Keep on AfD's that were tagged for rescue. I will attempt to tweak the wording to more accurately describe my actions. I think we all can agree that G10 is a bit overdramatic, and probably reveals that this MfD was the result of an emotional reaction on the part of the nominator (who is currently involved in an argument with me on an AfD). There is no Wikipedia policy that says I have to like ARS or share their principles, and I believe I have the right to express my opinions. There are likely to be a lot of "Delete" votes on this MfD once the nominator's ARS cohorts join the fray. I only hope that any delete votes will be properly backed up by Wikipedia policy. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 04:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean policies like WP:UP#POLEMIC? Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you, but I will let the community decide whether my userbox is polemic. SnottyWong talk 05:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: As yet another example of Jclemens' overreaction, he has taken it upon himself to rollback the last 20 or so AfD votes that I have cast. I have started a complaint at WP:ANI. SnottyWong talk 05:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to level unrelated charges in XfDs. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually not unrelated. Jclemens' justification for reverting my !votes was that my userbox proved I was voting in bad faith. I added that note to inform people of the nominator's emotional involvement with this entire situation. SnottyWong talk 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But it has nothing to do with whether the user box should be deleted or not. Nobody should vote differently because of this - they should assume the nomination is done in good faith and vote on the merits, not vote to punish. This might make sense to bring up at a DRV if jclemens had speedied, but here you're just throwing mud. You want people to assume XfDs are nominated in good faith, don't you? ErikHaugen (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They should assume XfD's are nominated in good faith, unless other evidence arises to the contrary. SnottyWong talk 15:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think polemic is a dramatic overstatement. This does not meet WP:UP#POLEMIC. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per change to userbox - Snottywong has changed the text since the userbox was nominated. I see nothing wrong with the current phrasing, being, "This user attempts to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and subjecting them to stringent criticism." The ARS does undertake canvassing, being admittedly one of the forms of canvassing generally allowed by the Wikipedia community, and every article should be subjected to stringent criticism. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because i am with the ARS and I simply vote keep on everything within sight. I just !voted keep on a random paperclip on my desk, in fact. Also, the edit to the userbox is appreciated. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not convinced that expressing frustration at ARS canvassing is bad faith. The wording change looks good. (Consideration should also be given to reversing the rollbacks.) Location (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be honest he does have a point about canvasing, even if it is a bit cynically put. Radical inclusionists are going to cluster around these pages and use them to track down articles that are being AFDd and are likely to be deleted. In my experience some radical inclusionists don't really give a stuff about policies, they more or less just want to keep everything, so they pad out the article with stuff to artifically make the article look much better than it really is, and then edit war to keep it in. One inclusionist, I recently checked his AFD record and he hadn't voted delete in over a month, and had done perhaps one or more AFDs per day. He also had a history of trying to remove core deletion policies. The ARS page itself isn't exactly extolling the virtues of writing the article to follow the wiki-policies, on the contrary, it seems to be based more on 'somebody put effort in, so keep it' which seems to be just a recipe for including a bunch of essays-like articles that don't necessarily follow any policies or reliable sources. I completely agree with trying to save articles if they can be written properly, but I think that currently the ARS page is overdoing it.- Wolfkeeper 05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree 110% with sentiment behind this. However, anti-whatever user boxes aren't a good idea, especially when it's a group of editors you will be dealing with. Many, many users have noted the problems with the current incarnation of the ARS, but just as many have noted they serve a useful function. This kind of divisive userbox is a bad idea. AniMate 05:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes this is a G10. It attacks an entity (the ARS) by making general accusations of breaching wikipedia policy (no canvassing). Allegations of canvassing should be made in the appropriate forums, not userboxes.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that someone is canvassing isn't saying they breached Wikipedia policy. Per WP:CANVASSING there are a number of acceptable forms of canvassing. The community has (at least to date) generally held that the form done by the ARS is acceptable, in that they encourage members to improve articles so that they meet standards, which benefits the project as a whole. And there's nothing wrong with putting the work done as a result of that canvassing to tight scrutiny; it's again something that benefits the project and it's something the ARS should (and I understand does) welcome as being something their work should be able to withstand. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The userbox needs to be construed in its context. The ARS - for all its many faults - is a community-sanctioned project whose members genuinely - if at (many) times wrong-headedly - try to improve the project. Now I can probably accept that G10 might not be met (struck above) - G10 relates to pages whose purpose is to disparage an entity and it's arguable that this is mere criticism rather than disparagement. I think Jclemens was right not to speedily delete it as such. But the userbox is divisive and in my view denigrates the good faith contributions of other editors. The project is better off without it.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually do what this userbox is advocating from time to time. However, the userbox is needlessly inflammatory and perpetuates a battleground mentality. By all means he should continue to keep an eye on them, but he doesn't need to a userbox that calls them out. AniMate 06:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the current wording. Verbal chat 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions as this userbox can be considered divisive, inflammatory, and a violation of the civility policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no issue here. As currently worded, it merely states that the user stringently reviews articles flagged for rescue. There's nothing wrong with doing or stating that. No comment on its prior state. Enigmamsg 07:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire or some rewording of a random previous deletion argument. Unomi (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an issue with the current wording, it implicitly denies AGF of the intent of ARS and/or the persons who make use of it, why else would it be necessary to counteract it? The sentiment that the userbox in question expresses is one which could at the height of AGF be the exact same as that of ARS itself; help improve the article to make clear whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria, in which case one has to question the utility of a cloned userbox with unclear phrasing. Unomi (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be necessary to counteract "it" if "it" is an unintended phenomenon. ie, a desire to counteract does not mean that the thing you counteract is intentional bad behavior. ErikHaugen (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik, the thing is that ARS members do vote delete when they find it appropriate, when an article cannot be improved to the extent needed to remain on wikipedia. Engaging in stringent criticism is worthless to the project as articles up for deletion will already have a rationale for deletion which needs to be answered or rendered obsolete in the face of improvements to the article. The fact that the box is called ARSBackfire should give ample indication that it is not a good faith userbox which aims at a congenial atmosphere. I have taken a stab at improving it here. Unomi (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they !vote for deletion when they find it appropriate does not mean that tagging does not have the effect of bringing the AfD to the attention of a group primarily consisting of people who like to keep borderline articles. This is significant, actually, since the outcomes of AfDs in marginal cases and the arguments therein are used to change guidelines, etc. I'm not sure why you think "stringent criticism" is ever worthless? In any case, what passes for "rendering obsolete" is usually a judgement call, and even though they are "not votes" they sure seem that way sometimes. ErikHaugen (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If they seem like votes then that would be due to the closing admins failure to take responsibility for their actions, they should themselves weigh the article against our policies and write up their reasoning in coming to their decision. It is an unfortunate fact that too many defer to the mob, but that is the problem to be fixed. Explain to me how ARSBackfire can be seen as anything but divisive. Please see WP:Userboxes#Content restrictions particularly this passage: Essentially: Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't. Unomi (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to say it wasn't divisive. You make a good point above about congeniality. I'm just saying that it is legitimate to want to counteract the unintended consequence of ARS. Then you have the best of everything - notable articles get better sourcing and all sides are heard at AfDs. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I believe the userbox does "express what I do", so I'm in compliance with the passage you quoted from WP:Userboxes#Content restrictions. SnottyWong talk 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as edited here. Unomi (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the users intent, it seems that he takes exception to the idea that he is here to improve wikipedia. Unomi (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take exception to the idea that I am here to improve Wikipedia, but that is not what I intended this userbox to illustrate. The edits made to the userbox completely changed the message it was sending. I think I made my intent clear in both the edit summary for that edit, as well as my comments on the talk page for the userbox. SnottyWong talk 16:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Unomi's reading of Snottywong's intent is accurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think would be an accurate reading of his intent? Look at the talkpage, the user wants to retain a 'zing', he wants to express a negative opinion of a wikiproject by way of a user box. It is inherently polemical. Anyone can monitor the ARS article lists and engage in the discussions in whichever manner they see fit, you don't need a divisive userbox in order to do so. The userbox was made at heat of a dispute in order to get a dig in and make an imagined point. Unomi (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unomi, the "zing" comment was clearly made in jest with regard to one user's humorous parody of my userbox. Please don't take my comments out of context to prove your point. SnottyWong talk 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only comment on what you actually said;
    1. In response to an attempt to edit the userbox to make it more constructive: Let's discuss at the MfD before taking it upon yourself to water it down here.
    2. Stating that your userbox has more 'zing'.
    It seems clear that your primary intention with the userbox is to criticize a wikipedia project. Criticizing projects is something that can be helpful in the context of a discussion or debate, but as a userbox its utility is less than nil. Keeping it would set an unfortunate downward path precedent in the userbox content that we allow. Unomi (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be your opinion that the userbox sets a bad precedent, but unfortunately it doesn't appear that your opinion matches the consensus established in this discussion. If the userbox is not deleted here, I will be keeping it on my user page. SnottyWong talk 19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks ok. Szzuk (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the current wording. WP:UP does indeed ban "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors", but stating that a group engages in canvassing hardly counts as "vilifying", especially when there's no policy against the canvassing concerned. And subjecting AfDed articles to scrutiny isn't disruptive. Hut 8.5 09:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a userbox about a productive activity concerned with improving the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete—I'm no fan of the ARS, but meeting fire-with-fire in this way simply turns Wikipedia into a battleground. All editors are expected to subject all articles to the same degree of criticism, regardless of whether the ARS is attempting to divert discussion, and advertising a failure to adhere to this expectation is not appropriate. The fact that the current wording is obviously a thinly-veiled euphemism for the original sentiment only serves to exacurbate the problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've suggested that the wording by changed from "stringent criticism" to "stringent review" or "critical review". Assuming this is done then I think it's appropiate to Keep it. Exxolon (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply because it's not inherently disruptive and editors should allow views other than their own to be espoused. Exxolon's suggestion is sensible. Claritas § 12:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not inherently disruptive or otherwise deletable. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with current wording. I don't see it as prima facie evidence of bad faith, just a very critical eye, which isn't always bad. PrincessofLlyr royal court 12:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with current wording or the change suggested by Exxolon, and if the Deletionist category is removed. As a whole, it is not inherently disruptive, and speaking plain facts is not the same as "attacking or vilifying groups of editors". Nor is it a bad thing to have more editors involved in AfDs, and user has already shown that he will state keep when appropriate. Certainly far worse stuff out there would seem to completely violate WP:UP, but is considered "acceptable." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current version is fine, earlier version is ok, initial version was unaceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any version. So the guy hates the ARS? Big deal. He's got as much a right to express his opinion-- crock of batshit though it may be-- as anyone else, so long as he's a productive, non-disruptive contributor. (Whether he is that or not, I have no idea.) Let me clarify what I mean by "non-disruptive": An editor who respects the mainspace, and does not attempt to limit it through deletions, deface articles with tags, or make them unstable through tendentious edits-- whether based on editor-created policy or not. Free speech on a talkpage never harmed the encyclopedia. Ideologically-fanatical editors with a set of "roolz" have, and do so continuously. Dekkappai (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix It current version is not fine... WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and accusing an entire group of editors of canvassing is an assumptionof bad faith... but WP:SOFIXIT applies... could easily say this user reviews articles tagged by ARS for potential canvassing instead of accusing everyone there of doing wrong implicitly... Arskwad (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix It "Does this userbox provide prima facie evidence of bad faith on the author's part in any AfD discussion?" - of course not: it merely means that the user happens to find that most of them deserve a delete !vote. I think we need to assume SnottyWong does this in good faith, carefully weighing each !vote, and is merely attempting to counteract what is seen as a potentially problematic phenomenon. It's not necessarily maligning; ARS does good work by bringing in people who want to properly source articles that are notable, etc, but it could conceivably have the effect that the AfD is packed with people who tend to !vote keep in borderline cases. SnottyWong is just trying to make sure all points of view are considered. I appreciate that you did not speedy a userspace page of someone that you were currently in an argument with; XfDs are always a good way to make sure you aren't overreacting. No harm in an XfD. wrt G10, I think an important consideration is the word "implicit." I'm not sure it necessarily means that SnottyWong believes that ARS is always intentional passive aggressive behavior, but it did give the box that feel. I would like to see a different word here, perhaps "effective canvassing?" Or maybe use a word like "unintentional canvassing?" It seems that would make the point more clear. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "implicit" refers to my opinion that the list of articles tagged for rescue at ARS often (but not always) serves as a way to notify a group of people (who are, by definition, more inclined to vote Keep than Delete) to take a look at an AfD. Whether or not this is the defined goal of ARS is another conversation. My opinion is that this creates an imbalance on Wikipedia, and therefore my userbox expresses my urge to counteract that imbalance by using the list of articles tagged for rescue as an index of AfD's for deletionists (such as myself) to scrutinize and make sure that such canvassing isn't affecting the outcome of the AfD. If the article has truly been "rescued", then I will gladly (and have in the past) vote to Keep the article. SnottyWong talk 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing my point. When you say "serves as a way," do you mean it is a tool that people often use deliberately for this purpose? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me sum up, for just myself - "Yes." Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm noting bad acts. The people who are using the template to keep articles believe that having articles about everything is helpful to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ErikHaugen, yes, I believe that some people (not all) use ARS as a tool to deliberately add a lot of Keep !votes to certain AfD's. It is not unusual for me to review AfD's that are flagged for rescue, and see a large group of Keep votes (often with little or no rationale) that roughly correspond with the time that the rescue tag was added. This is just my own anecdotal evidence, and therefore my opinion, which I'm expressing on my userbox. SnottyWong talk 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep that opinion to yourself and change the word "implicit." thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect: No. It's my opinion and I don't have to suppress it simply because you don't like it. Particularly when the consensus here is that there is no problem with the userbox. SnottyWong talk 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the current form is fine: expressing frustration with Wikipedia's processes is perfectly acceptable (though I myself appreciate the Article Rescue Squad). It becomes a scary day when any criticism of ourselves is stifled because someone else might not like it. Buddy431 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus — I see the rationale for deletion as divisive/derisive, but it's also a very spot-on commentary on a very real problem and serves to focus the community's attention on a problem which is well understood but for which a solution remains elusive. This Mfd and the related AN/I drama is just another skirmish on the battleground. I prefer the original version, which does not imply bad faith; it's *humour*, which is an effective means of communications. Note the political cartoons in most major newspapers. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 16:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus"? That's what one might say in closing an MfD, not in commenting on one. Enigmamsg 21:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my rationale; I, personally, see reasons to keep and reasons to delete, so my opinion is divided. It's also the result the closer will reach. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm pointing out is the wording. Neutral would be not taking a side. No consensus means you're evaluating the MfD, which seems odd. Enigmamsg 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with SnottyWong that this practice needs to be done since there is implicit canvassing going on with the ARS. If nobody watches these articles the AfD discussions will be highly biased. I do agree that the wording could be a bit nicer, but I don't think its outside the bounds of civility. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal While most editors commenting above seem to think that the current wording is acceptable--and I think it's substantially improved vs. the version I nominated--I still see two outstanding issues: 1) There is a proposal upstream to further improve the civility in the wording, and 2) The actual name "ARSbackfire" is itself a bit of BATTLE fodder. I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (with the consent of the other delete !voters, of course) and move past this if those two issues can be resolved. Scrutinizing AfD's is an appropriate action for any editor; while the original version of this userbox is unnecessarily divisive, I don't see the harm in an appropriately neutrally worded box that all of us can agree doesn't violate WP:UP#POLEMIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this (and remove my delete !vote) if Erik Haugen's point about canvassing is acted upon. The userbox tars all ARS members with the canvassing brush, and the userbox's creator says above that is not what he/she is intending. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not the closing admin, it seems pretty obvious to me that there is no consensus to delete the userbox in it's current state. Therefore, I see no need to modify it in any way, and thus I oppose your proposal. SnottyWong talk 23:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of ARS, I do not feel tarred by this userbox at all. Verbal chat 07:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a slap with a wikitrout to Snottywong and his enormous WP:OWN problem. The userbox text is bad enough, but the edit summary 'after all this is my userbox,'.
    This is a user who just likes deleting articles. Read their contributions history. Apart from a handful of "their own" articles which they guard jealously, just about their only contribution is voting (that is how they describe it) against articles at AfD. They have an utter disregard for consensus: just look at their undiscussed move of Cement in Africa which only hours before had closed as Keep from one of their AfDs. Also the WP:REDLINK stripping they proceeded with afterwards. Their involvement in the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et al. was remarkable for its ill temper and the number of times Snottywong was dragged off to RFC. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the your valuable and relevant opinions about my contributions. However, I'm pretty sure WP:OWN was intended more for articles in the mainspace as opposed to user subpages. In fact, WP:USER says the following: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." Regardless, you took my comments out of context, as is your custom. The rest of my edit summary, as well as my clarifications on the talk page, explained that I wanted to keep my original wording of the userbox, so that if this MfD closes as Keep, then it will be a mandate that my original wording of the userbox is acceptable. SnottyWong talk 05:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also love to see examples of me guarding "my" articles, and my "enormous WP:OWN problem." I've never seen someone hold a grudge for such a long time... SnottyWong talk 05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And finally, I've actually never been the subject of an RfC, so I'm not sure what this means: "the number of times Snottywong was dragged off to RFC". Thanks for the slanderous, false accusations. I can't wait for your rational response. SnottyWong talk 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a proud member of the Article Rescue Squadron I don't see any issue with other users objecting. Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Alansohn, keep. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing personal involved. The userbox is an expression of a project-related opinion, and as such should not be deleted. Preferably, the userbox should like to an essay putting forward the opinion, where it can be discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite reword per Jclemens. This appears to me to be a divisive userbox which targets a certain group of editors and accuses them of bad faith behaviour. It's only a matter of HOW divisive to see whether it fits WP:UP#POLEMIC. It suggests to me that those who have the userbox are specifically working to counteract the actions of a set of editors. It suggests as well that those editors are circuventing WP:CANVASS to canvass inclusionists who will not proceed rigorously to justify their opinions with Wikipedia policy. The irony of this userbox is also not lost on me. Compromise: A wording WITHOUT a call to action or a link to the list specifically (which would be the same thing it disagrees with) such as, This user feels the ARS's tagging of articles for rescue acts inadvertantly to unbalance AfDs. Disclosure: I recently added the ARS template to my user page. (Also... if one reads the non-listy part of WP:ARS you'll see it's essentially the first sentence of WP:ATD with a dash of "wasting work is bad" so I am not sure that 'bias' is the kind we're trying to avoid in WP:CANVASS) - BalthCat (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the ideals of ARS are noble, in practice they're mostly just canvasing people to go along to an article and vote keep. Wasting work isn't the most evil thing; having a Wikipedia with low standards is worse. People don't value articles by how much work when into it, they value it based on how good it is. Sometimes, even often, deleting material improves the Wikipedia, such as when it can't be well sourced. The ARS process involves prejudging whether an article is 'worth' keeping, and then the members nearly always vote keep, no matter what the state of the article.- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfie, you are entitled to your opinion of the ARS, but in fact that is not what happens in "practice". I ignore many rescue tagged AfDs where the article is not worthy, as do many ARS members. I try to improve those that can be improved, a typical rescue candidate occurs when the nominator doesn't follow WP:BEFORE.--Milowent (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that we disallow such content is because it can lead to escalations. There is simply no benefit to the project of allowing it, userboxes are meant to aid in the societal cohesion and hopefully engender a cooperative environment - an essay on the relative merits of ARS could be useful, it might be a constructive force for change, but this userbox strikes me as being puerile wankery. Unomi (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that an essay would be more helpful, it could lead also to escalation, that is down to how people to choose to respond to criticism. I do not thinking deleting the userbox will help achieve a great deal of co-operation in this instance, and may actually itself cause escalation. When it comes to scathing criticism, I have seen worse. My only request would be "implicit canvassing" part be deleted or modified to make the userbox a bit less like a bad faith assumption, otherwise it is a reasonable viewpoint. CT Cooper (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, attempts at editing the userbox to be less 'zingy' have thus far been rebuked. Unomi (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Unomi, do you really not understand that the whole point of the userbox is to express my criticism for ARS, and my opinion that ARS often serves as a vehicle for "legal" canvassing? Watering it down to say something like "This user improves Wikipedia by reviewing articles flagged for rescue" completely obscures the intended message. Just because you don't like the message doesn't automatically make it "puerile wankery", automatically worthy of deletion, or available for endless modification as you see fit. This MfD exists to discuss the content as is, not as a forum to poke and prod at it and change it in the middle of discussion (which basically disrupts the discussion by invalidating the prior !votes, as their comments would be based on a different version of the content). How many different ways does this need to be explained to you before you will stop quoting my comments out of context, and making uninformed and irrelevant comments? SnottyWong talk 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusion regarding the role that editing during XfD plays could be why you misconstrue the nature of ARS. Please refrain from stating that I have quoted you out of context when you yourself make it clear that my exposition of your position is correct. I made exactly 1 edit to your userbox in an attempt to make it something that the community could support widely - endless modification is trite hyperbole as much of your post has been. In the future please strive to ensure that your actions are not indistinguishable from that of an asshat. Unomi (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the role of editing during an XfD. However, there is no need for editing during an XfD which is clearly leaning towards a Keep result. It is only needed for an XfD which is leaning towards deletion, where editing could change the minds of !voters and switch their !vote to Keep. This is clearly not the case in this MfD. There is no reason to modify a page when the consensus of the community is that there is no need for modification. I believe that makes you the asshat. SnottyWong talk 22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the personal attacks and for your contribution of absolutely nothing to this discussion. Have a nice life. SnottyWong talk 22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis we can remove the ARS boxes as well... they're obviously inflammatory, see the length of this MfD.- Wolfkeeper 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this MfD isn't about the ARS boxes. -- Ϫ 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the argument that this box here should be deleted isn't based on any fundamental principles. Because if it is based on principles, then why wouldn't they be deleted also? And if it's not based on principles then what is it based on?- Wolfkeeper 02:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is saying that such a discussion is off-topic here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to have that discussion you could try nominating that userbox for deletion. Unomi (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that with all the conflict and drama, here, at ANI, RFC/U, and god knows where else, that started as a result of someones reaction to this userbox, Wikipedia probably would be better off without it. Snottywong can continue on in his editing philosophy without needlessly enflaming another user by flaunting it on his userpage. Let's just get rid of the userbox, formally admonish jclemens for his reverts, and all get back to editing the encyclopedia. -- Ϫ 04:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A thinly veiled comment from a rabid inclusionist and ARS member in good standing, which belies his true intentions. I see that you're trying to set up a situation where you can discredit my future !votes based on the content of my userbox. Well then, let me just head you off at the pass. The volumes of comments at this MfD, at the AN/I for Jclemens' inappropriate rollback actions regarding this userbox, and at the subsequent RFC/U for Jclemens clearly paint an undeniable picture of consensus. What is that consensus, you ask? The consensus is that my userbox does not indicate that my !votes on ARS-tagged AfD's are in bad faith. Instead, it merely indicates that I patrol the AfD's tagged for rescue, and !vote on them as I would any other article. In other words, I use the ARS list as a vehicle to find the AfD's to which I might add my opinion. Once I've found the AfD's to which I'd like to contribute, then the fact that they are tagged for rescue does not influence my !votes on them. I know this is probably difficult for you to believe and come to terms with. However, be warned: if you attempt to attack the credibility of my future !votes in ARS-tagged AfD's based solely on the content of my userbox, then be prepared for a fight. SnottyWong talk 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not even sure why it's up for MfD and certainly can't see why some feel it would fall under G10. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to something less inflammatory. I would also prefer to see the wording change suggested by Exxolon, but that's not as critical. I don't see the text of the box itself as derogatory or as "inciting hatred" against ARS; I also don't see any issue with Snottywong's ARS-related AfD !votes, so long as he is not blindly !voting delete - and the infobox itself suggests that he is not. Do I wish this infobox and this debate were unnecessary? Sure, but that's no reason to delete. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only purpose appears to be partisan canvassing, does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonable statement to express an opinion upon the project-related. Otherwise is to give way to the interpretations of the paranoid and the butthurt. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Plutonium27. There isn't really anything wrong with it. Reyk YO! 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep how about renaming and rewording the userbox? Perhaps the text could read This user regularly reviews and subjects articles tagged for rescue to stringent criticism. The target articles are still subjected to the criticism but the whole ARS is not.--Lenticel (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lenticel and the fact that a user is expressing their opinion. —ΩpenTheWindows™ 03:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3ASnottywong%2Fuserboxes%2FARSbackfire

Leave a Reply