Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:30, 10 June 2010

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

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)

• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 04:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You mean policies like WP:UP#POLEMIC? Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you, but I will let the community decide whether my userbox is polemic. SnottyWong talk 05:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages community, and every article should be subjected to stringent criticism. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Saying that someone is canvassing isn't saying they breached Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• Keep Nothing wrong with the current wording. Verbal chat 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Misplaced Pages: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)