Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive517

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip[edit]

Resolved much as it will be here. Until there's evidence of policy violation with consensus supporting the policy violations, there's nothing here not but You Said, No You Said, I Didn't Say, Spammer, No u, No U, and so on. This should go to RFC, linking back to this when it archives. rootology (C)(T) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:TIME Magazine September 17 1951 cover.jpg
Is this the beginning of WikiWar III, or is it simply an indication of more senseless drama? Stay tuned!

The user Ikip is currently on a mass canvassing spree of the article rescue squadron. He has tagged dozens hundreds of user talk pages with an invitation to join the group. I messaged him about it before but he promptly reverted my edit without explanation. When pressed further, he engaged me in a discussion on my talk page. Just a few minutes ago he started again and I left another message on his talk page. ~50 invites later (which happened in the course of less than 10 minutes) I sent him another message. Clearly he is ignoring me so I'm coming here to report it. I'm not sure if this is the right place, so I apologize if this post is off-board.

Ikip has a clear battleground mentality here, and the ARS is often thought of as an inclusionist partisan organization. Ikip is sending out invites to the ARS to what appears to be everybody with a template identifying themselves as an inclusionist. This is clearly gaming the system in an attempt to flag down more "keep" votes to the articles that the ARS tags as being in need of "rescue". Besides being on a massive scale, his postings are biased (only "inclusionist" users get the message), and they clearly are meant as an attempt at vote-stacking. This behaviour violates nearly all of WP:CANVASS.

A sample edit of what he has been doing is here. Here's another. Themfromspace (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should stop and address this here. I will write a message -- Samir 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well ARS used to be non "partisan." Just noting that it wasn't always to blatantly slanted. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed and troubled by this, and I'd rather see a decrease in the partisanship than anything else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think it was slanted when I added a Userbox for it ages ago. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 06:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, Ikip just declined our conversation. Something must said to him before he continues tomorrow. This has gone on for several days now in hour long bursts. And no, in theory the ARS isn't biased, but just look at what happens when an article gets tagged for rescue: the same few people jump in and invariably vote to "keep" the article. In practise it's very slanted. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what harm there is. I didn't even know about this organization until he stuck it on my talk page. MalikCarr (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The harm is that he's gaming the system. By sending the template only to users with the "inclusionist" template on their page, his posts are biased. Also they are mass-scale, and can be seen to be used to influence AfD debates since ARS is structured around those debates. Themfromspace (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Themfromspace, I am sure that you are only concerned about the project, and this has nothing to do with your userbox on your user page, err i mean views of wikipedia.
Please note that A Man In Black, like Themfromspace and LeaveSleaves, have polar opposite views than I do. A Man In Black and I frequent the same policy pages.
I have gotten nothing but positive responses from the editors that I have posted this invitation on. I love WP:ARS because we save articles by adding references, making wikipedia a better stronger encyclopedia. For example, I found and added 8 great references to Ndaba kaMageba and asked the nominator to close the AfD nomination today.
Ikip (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want WP:ARS to turn into Inclusion Squad Hyper Team Go. I want it to be the project that saves articles by referencing them. That's a Good Thing, and it's been a Good Thing ever since I praised ARS at its first MFD. Why are you spamming inclusionists only, when that's going to overwhelm any neutrality the project ever had? Why are you spamming anyone at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Now it is "spamming"? Is posting Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is canvassing? How about the other 260 templates that everyone here is ignoring? See the policy discussion about what is and what is not canvassing below.
Why does [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam post their tag to those editors who remove linkspam from Wikipedia?
Lets be honest A man in black, you vote mostly delete on the AfD circuit, I don't. I have never seen you improve an article when it is in AfD. I am sure you have done it, but I have never seen it. So your praise of ARS seems a little fill in the blank.Ikip (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That project is not politically controversial, and nobody has used it to advertise for political partisans. I have difficulty believing your intentions weren't political when your response to any criticism of your conduct is to accuse your critics of opposing your politics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As another note (mostly to themfromspace), it is entirely legitimate for a user to remove messages without comment from their talk page. It may seem brusque or uncivil, but it is within his rights to do so and we shouldn't use his lack of a response to the original message as a hint of malign intent. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out a previous instance of such postings by Ikip. During the RfC at WP:FICTION, Ikip posted a number of messages on various talk pages of articles related to fiction. My request to stop did not deter him/her from continuing. LeaveSleaves 07:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
LeaveSleaves, you forgot to mention that the neutral message was okayed with two administrators before it went out, and that it was only posted on episode and character pages, no user talk page. Pages I might add which were going to be dramatically affected by WP:FICT. You also forgot to mention that you have polar opposite POV than I do on WP:FICT, and that you have been actively digging through my edits for dirt, and you attempted to get me in trouble not three days ago here. Ikip (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ikip, for some reason, you are conflating LeaveSleaves and Flatscan. While we both approached you regarding the WP:FICT notices, we are distinct editors. My concern was not the wording of your notice, but the number of article Talk pages on which you posted it: around 165 notices when I counted, and more later, stopping just before Kww threatened to report you on AN/I. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As Flatscan pointed out Ikip, we are distinct editors. I have very limited involvement at WP:FICT. In fact, I did not even participate in the said RfC. My concern was with the speed and number of posts you were making on article talk pages. Unfortunately you did no deem it necessary to respond to my concern. My interaction with you is limited to that single message I posted on your talk page, until now. I have no interest in "digging through [your] edits for dirt". LeaveSleaves 07:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I gladly joined his group, and I'm looking forward to working with it. I don't see what rule he violated by sending me an invitation. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
According to his user page, User:Themfromspace is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam
Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:
No-spam.png Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I used this very WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:
Barnstar search rescue.png Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~
Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for turning the argument directly against me. The problem here isn't the templates themselves but how they are used. I have never once used the template you associate me with. You have used yours on a massive scale. Not only that, but an incredibly partisan scale. Wikiproject spam isn't partisan at all and gets next to no opposition from the Wikipedia community while the ARS has been subject to deletion discussions several times. You have an agenda behind your postings, thats what makes it canvassing. Themfromspace (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
<sarcasm>I'm sure inviting indef blocked users to join the cause really helps</sarcasm> --Versageek 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed, please let me know if there are any other cases. Ikip (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't understand the need for this page to begin with. After all, the obvious places to go for expertise and/or input regarding articles on obscure and/or specialised subjects in need of expert help to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia standards should the boards of Wikiprojects which are directly related to the subject matter. From the looks of that page, it might be better re-titled the 'Every Sperm is Sacred Article Vote-Stacking Squadron'. And with the blatant canvassing, even more so. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that's unfair and a violation of WP:AGF. I have no particular association with the Article Rescue Squadron, but I've seen a few AfD's in which they've tagged an article for rescue; most recently, Perley G. Nutting. I don't recall ever seeing a problem with vote stacking in such a case (and may I remind you, AfDs are not votes); what I have seen is improvement to the article under discussion, from a point where it looked plausibly speediable to a point where it was obvious that it should be kept. I think such efforts should be greatly encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it's perfectly fair and an observation of actual behaviour. The reaction to criticism and personal opinion, by the way, ought not be the knee-jerk misapplying of initialisms like WP:AGF to stifle view-points you don't like. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It's possibly an observation of a tiny minority of editors' actual behaviours. But it's far from the purpose of Article Rescue. One of the fundamental principles underlying article rescue is that if one doesn't edit the article to make it better, one isn't actually rescuing it. One is simply being an AFD discussion participant. Article rescue is article work, and it doesn't require discussion participation, especially if multiple rescuers are collaborating. I've rescued several articles without making any contribution to the AFD discussion other than a horizontal rule to show where in the timeline of the discussion I Kerrrzappp!ed the article. Indeed, at NEAT chipset (AfD discussion) I rescued an article with no edits to the discussion at all.

          Article rescue isn't an "-ism" of any flavour except "encyclopaedism". (On a side note I observe, again, that I've never seen a use of "deletionist" or "inclusionist" that wasn't involved in calling other editors names.) One rescues what can be rescued, at times taking joy in the amazement of others at what turns out to be possible. If the actions of one editor, or a group of editors, turns Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron into a ballot-stuffing mob, intent on flash-crowding AFD discussions and doing no article work at all, as existed (much to the detriment both of Wikipedia and its community) in years gone by with a few subjects before we settled down with reasonable ideas about notability, that doesn't mean that article rescue is the problem. It means that those editors will have ceased to be article rescuers, and the instigators of that change will have not served the encyclopaedia, or AFD, well.

          I suggest that you don't observe the unrepresentative, albeit vocal, tiny minority of editors whose focus is to call other editors names with "-ism"s, and start observing the actual article rescues peformed by article rescuers, from Lampman's work at List of United States presidents by handedness (AfD discussion) to those listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#Selected previous rescues. That is what article rescue is, any and all of the hot air from "-ism" name callers notwithstanding. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip and WP:ARS advertising[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, as User:Neutralhomer suggested [1] where User:A Man In Black was ironically advertising this issue. Ikip (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly place my finger on why, but I'm troubled by Ikip (talk · contribs) advertising the Article Rescue Squadron project on dozens of talk pages of users who have inclusionist userboxes on their page. I don't want to turn this into a whole inclusionist/deletionist hairball, and I would appreciate it if people would stay away from "Inclusionism is okay, so this is okay" or "Inclusionism is bad, so this is bad." That said, I'm troubled by the warping affect on AFD.

The project maintains a widely-transcluded list of borderline AFDed articles. Unlike topical lists, there are no criteria for placement on that list other than a member of the project wanting the rest of the project to look at that article. This wouldn't bother me so much, except that "throw out the deletionist" rhetoric is common on the talk page, the project page links a variety of inclusionist essays prominently, and Ikip just advertised the project to everyone he could find that self-identifies as an inclusionist.

I brought up similar concerns at WT:Canvassing and the project's talk page, with little result and mostly unreassuring scorn from the same people doing the things that concern me. I'm not opposed to this project in theory, but I keep seeing signs of it turning into a partisan canvassing project. Could I get some input here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of swift input would be appreciated; Ikip has now tagged hundreds of talk pages in the last fifteen minutes or so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed another user has brought this very subject up on AN/I. You might want to combine the two posts on the high-traffic AN/I. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 23, 2009 @ 06:39
This is ANI. Might want to fix your copy-and-paste. =P —kurykh 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:AN, and we can discuss this further at WP:ANI#Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I posted at the wrong place. Now I look like an idiot. —kurykh 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It is this - "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." that is disturbing. If that was deleted, it might be acceptable along with all the other Project invitations. The bottom line is either we remove the project or we let them have a project invitation like other projects. I am in favour of not removing the project but hoping it will get more NPOV, so the invitation needs cleaning up. Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I will happily remove it, if you wish. I added that line because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory)."[2] I added that in the hope of appeasing him. I am very open to new suggestions and criticisms. Ikip (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here. ARS has the express purpose of improving articles - why is that bad? And who would you invite to join - expressed inclusionists; expressed deletionists; every possible editor? Obviously inclusionists might be more inclined to look at the project and decide to make significant contributions to poor articles. This is not a matter of winning the keep/delete !vote, it's about getting lots of quality articles. Any "canvassing" is not designed to achieve any result other than improvement. That's still a good thing, right? Franamax (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not in what the ARS claims to be, but in what it is. Looking at the talk page, it's quite clear that whatever the initial goals were, this has become a "political" organisation. Posts such as this, this and this are what worry me. There's nothing wrong with editors having opinions, but a semi-offical (there's a link to their WP:RESCUE on the AFD page) club used to organise "pushes" is more worrying. yandman 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before with the ARS - it certainly does good work on rescuing some articles, but it wouldn't be helpful to have the situation recur where AfD-closing admins were having to discount reams of Keeps on AfDs of clearly non-notable articles because people had got over-enthusiastic. Black Kite 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting tht closing admins simply count votes abd discount the discussions? If An admin sees 5 unadorned or ILIKEIT keeps, and one cogent and well discussed reason for delete, whi is the admin going to pay attention to? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't happen, but yes it occasionally does. My point is more that it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Black Kite 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, ARS specifically gets a wide berth because their goals are to save articles and their methods are to (ostensibly) improve the article rather than simply join the debate. When that second point ceases to be the case, we need to look at them just as hard as we would look at a "Deletion squadron", noting borderline AfDs which might benefit from some deletionist input. Protonk (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's ironic that Ikip is canvassing [3] [4] this very discussion to users who have given him positive feedback about his template, also labelling me a "deletionist" at the same time. Will the battle ever end? He is urging people to come here and voice their support. Themfromspace (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Those two users just joined ARS, I wanted to let them know about the wikidrama you are stoking, and that you were opposed to me letting them know about WP:ARS. I am adding perfectly permissible invitations to other editors talk pages, which have nothing to do with you, and you are causing massive wikidrama, and creating the WP:BATTLE. As I wrote on your talk page: "I am indifferent to what you do in your free time, including contacting deletionists" Ikip (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Your words: ":Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your talk page, by a self proclaimed deletionist" I can't imagine that this was a productive post. What did you intent to accomplish with it? Protonk (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Refactored 2 minutes later: "Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your and other editor's talk page, by an editor who has the deletionist tag on his talk page" Let me repeat what I wrote above I wanted these two editors to know about the wikidrama that Themfromspace was stoking, and that he was opposed to letting them know about WP:ARS. I hope this clarified things. Ikip (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to bed, I can't continue this discussion any more. Hopefully a consensus can be established as I sleep and hopefully it will determine what you are doing is wrong. I highly recommend people read over WP:CANVASS and see how it applies in this situation. These edits are biased, intended to stack AfDs, and done on a massive scale without regards for the individual editor the posts go out to (even indef blocked users are welcome!), except that they have to be "inclusionist" editors as "deletionist" editors are bad. Peace out. Themfromspace (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Lets cut and paste our discussion we had about this already:
WP:Canvassing first sentence: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."
Where is the community discussion? No community discussion, no canvassing.
Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam members such as yourself not be allowed to post Template:WPSPAM-invite-n? Should the other 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates be deleted? Ikip (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
We're wading into wikilawyering territory, but here goes: I invite you to take a look at the note attached to that very sentence you quoted: "Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post." —kurykh 08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Another thing: you're conflating three things: one being the existence of the invitation, second being the message contained in said invitation, and third being to whom the message is targeted. The first is not a problem, the second being the major issue here, and the third is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. —kurykh 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that getting people to join ARS is *not* about saving articles, although that might be a side-effect, it's to ensure that another people are standing by the next time they try and get notability deleted or marked as a failed essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Possibly - I have always tried to AGF regarding this issue, but this by Ikip, linked above is troubling - " I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This isn't about rescuing possibly saveable articles, is it? Black Kite 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, this AfD for an article tagged with ARS is the type of thing I'm talking about. Look at all the Keeps with non-rationales, some from ARS members who haven't tried to fix the article at all (it's still completely unsourced). Then, compare the Keep from User:DGG, who as usual has it exactly correct. Black Kite 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a common sense approach be to establish the harm done, or harm to be done. This is a hugely constructive effort by Ikip, to organize people who would be willing to throw time into rescuing other people's work, because their work might be deleted by wikipedians, who argue for deletion because the article has some sort of problem, but will not spend time to fix the issues themselves. I'm asking: "what's the harm done?" by organizing people to fix endangered articles, so they conform to Wikipia's high standards. Alternatively, what is the harm done by stopping Ikip in fixing endangered articles. I see no attempt to influence AfD discussions here, this critique is ill conceived. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    The harm that was done was that a project that needs to walk a bit of political tightrope in order to do its work, work which is a net good for the wiki, was just advertised to hundreds of people who have self-declared their partisanship in that political circle. At best, this complicates focusing the project on article improvement and not politics. At worst, it marries tools that stand to do a great deal to overwhelm AFD with bloc action with self-declared political partisans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article is improved to meet concerns at an AfD, is wiki not itself improved? I'd hate to think anyone in this discussion will disagree. There are thousands of articles at AfD at any one time and only a handful of volunteers at ARS able to get to them in our continued efforts to improve wiki. And many of these require input from willing experts in certain fields. So... Ikip is asking help from editors in order to continue improving the project by improving articles. Would it have made any kind of sense to send a request to save artilces to anyone who do not show interest in improving other's articles? proudly displays a "deletionist" tag? All he saying is "want to help improve wiki?" Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone is arguing against your initial premise. More of a problem is the possibilities of AfD spamming (which has happened before) and the canvassing on policy issues. I'd also take issue with your last point - I probably veer towards the deletionist side on many issues, but I have fixed articles that I have seen at AfD plenty of times, which is why I think the "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" argument is one to avoid. I doubt if there are many "hardcore deletionists", or what would be the point in them being here? Black Kite 09:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Right. There are two steps here. One is arguing that ARS is becoming less and less about making substantive improvements to articles scheduled for deletion and more and more about organizing arguments against deletion. The second stems from the first. If we accept the first premise (we don't have to, but roll with it), then we have to treat much of the "communications" made by Ikip et al. as canvassing of some sort. Again, ARS gets treated differently from "inclusionist" or "deletionist" projects because their stated mission is avowedly non-partisan. Once the mission comes into question, that status has to be questioned as well. I mean, we can agree that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion and that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. Let's pretend that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion decided to have a central location where they could discuss AfD debates which were on the margin. Let's go further and say that once they did this, they determined that they didn't have enough people commenting, so they went out and found people who had "deletionist" userboxes or people who had voted to make WP:N policy and invited them to that discussion. Would we consider that somewhat untoward? Also, I should note that this isn't the first time a partisan slant has been added to ARS. Ikip previously attempted to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion with ARS and WICU, and was stopped only when Banjiboi and User:Realkyhick started an AN/I thread about it. In the ensuring drama, he accused reallyhick of being a radical deletionist, accused me of being a meatpuppet for a banned user and flared out. I see this as a somewhat more subtle continuation of that previous attempt. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tempered that sentence. I have voted delete at many AfD's and only "keep" when I think there is a chance the article might meets standards. Do the deletes nake me a delitionists? Do the keeps make ne an inclusionist? Or is trying to do the best for the project just make me an "editor". Hmmm... okay. I gotta give Ikip credit for doing the utmost to bring fresh blood to the ARS... as we feel quite overwhelmed at times. His tag, if to ever be used again, might best be an invitaion that states "The ARS promotes a non-partisan efort to improve Wiki. If you'd like to join, leave the politics at the door." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Innoculating ARS against politics would be a Good Thing, although I think it'd need more than that if problems persist. I think ARS in concept and more or less in practice is the opposite of WP:POINT: improving the wiki to prove a point. Overt political efforts are a threat to the project, but not a problem of it unless they are tolerated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But the problem is that you're not leaving politics at the door, Michael. How is this leaving politics at the door? "An interesting debate that should interest Rescue Squad members....". How is this not vote shopping? Ikip's answer to the latter says it all: "not officially"... yandman 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as he's doing it manually and not by bot. I can certainly understand why you, A Man In Black, who is a deletionist, would be irritated by him mostly selecting inclusionists for his group. Let's just say that your complaints about this ring slightly hollow.

If you're worried about what direction the organization will take, join it yourself and keep an eye on it instead of trying to squelnch it. Jtrainor (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment is a preview of the response to any concerns that WP:ARS is becoming a partisan task force if this sort of advertising is allowed to continue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's pretty poor form. AMiB's complaints about this are pretty reasoned. If you want to accuse someone of playing politics, pick your targets better. Protonk (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is going off tangent now, and I don't see any reason for admin intervention at the moment. Should this thread me moved to WT:ARS or somewhere similar? Black Kite 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm encouraging people to join the Article Rescue Squadron if they are going to rescue articles by improving them; but I would be concerned that Ikip may be trying to convert the ARS to his own rather combative anti-AfD approach where nominators he disagrees with get intemperate attacks at AfD, and threats such as "If necessary, I can request to see the history of the other 15 articles you put up for deletion" so that he can decide whether they were "Abuse of the AfD process." JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Note: comments linked to above have since been refactored by Ikip. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

And restored per #Editing a closed AfD to refactor one's intemperate comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec x2)Please yandman, go to any policy page and you have a group of like minded editors who push there own agendas on how wikipedia should be. Don't hold WP:ARS to a standard that no other policy page or Wikigroup follows.
I suggest that this ANI be closed too. (refactored out) For once I agree with Black Kite, lets just close this topic.
(AKA User:inclusionist) Ikip (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Ikip. Not useful. THIS is what ARS is about. The time we are spedning here... you included... is time better spent fixing what's broke instead of arguing about how it got broke. I'd rather fix the damn pipe that stand around complaining about having wet feet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Only 106 AfDs in over 2 years? I must be slipping. Note however that a number of those are procedural noms or moved across from PROD/CSDs that I wasn't sure about deleting (you'll find this with the stats for a lot of admins), so such figures can be misleading. Black Kite 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"Only users I consider sufficiently inclusionist are allowed to criticize me" is a problematic attitude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...please add the edit diff on that quote. :) Ikip (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"Everyone who is criticizing is actually doing it because they don't like that I'm an inclusionist, whether they know it or not" isn't much better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit diff please?
As I mentioned below, yes AMIB, you are here to improve wikipedia and make the project better, we all are. As wikipedians, we leave all of our biases at the door, and we change into enyclopedist outfits, ready to make the project a better place. We are always fair and unbiased in our judgements as enyclopedists. Ikip (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come now, look at the header of this section. It clearly says that AMIB isn't sure something is actually wrong here, but feels bad about it and wants something done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The edits that JohnCD has linked to are very worrying. I would suggest renaming the page to something a little less "The Incredibles" and simply not allowing canvassing/spamming. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for input because I am uncomfortable acting because I don't know what to do and feel any action I take could be mistaken for partisan action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes dear Jtrainor, AMIB, like everyone here, only wants the best for wikipedia and the project. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, nothing to see here and is starting to get heated. Tea for all, fifteen minutes for the brass band to play and then lets get back to improving the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having that statement about inclusionists/deletionists on the ARS template has a very unfortunate connotation, as you can see if you try substituting other words: what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily white people, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." or what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily Hindus, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." - do you see the problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?[edit]

Let me ask this simple: Where is the need for admin intervention in this? The thread starter claims, he does not want another inclusionist-deletionist discussion but that is exactly what happened. What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote. If the keep-arguments are weaker than the delete ones, then it does not matter how many of them there are.
So, if ikip wants more people to join ARS, who cares? It's not canvassing because all he says is "come and help improving articles". Everything else is pure interpretation of his motives and, as I outlines above, not really a problem. I wish we could avoid such unneeded discussions here. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip was spamming hundreds of talk pages, and by all indications intends to resume doing so tomorrow. If his message or intent is problematic and he doesn't desist, that is an issue that requires admin intervention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • He has desisted for the moment. If he starts again, then I would suggest starting a new thread at ANI, with a link to this one. I don't believe advertising the ARS to sympathetic users is problematic; wikilawyering or focusing the ARS on politics would be. Black Kite 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    And if he advertises to 400 more users then stops, will we simply say, "Well, what do you want us to do now?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    I doubt if there are many more users with inclusionist userboxes that he hasn't contacted. If he expands that canvassing to other users, then that clearly fails WP:CANVASS. At the moment, I am wary of characterising this as disruption. If those who join up with ARS fail to follow its guidelines and are disruptive, though, that is a separate matter. Black Kite 10:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, leaving your personal views aside, how exactly is he breaking Wikipedia policies by doing so? Hundreds of Wikiprojects do the same to get interested people to join them, it was never considered canvassing before. Posting neutrally worded invites to editors has been found acceptable even when done on a larger scale, as long as there is no intent to sway people to a certain position / point of view. That position may exist if one makes the connection ARS => inclusionist "cabal" => mass-keep-!voting on AFDs but that connection is not in the message and thus we cannot say ikip does that to create an inclusionist "cabal" or to change !voting on AFDs. As Black Kite puts it very correctly: Advertising the existence of a project itself is not the problematic thing. To read a larger political intention in that message is one. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
These invites aren't neutrally worded, and only people of a stated point of view were solicited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said, it is long-standing practice that invites are sent out to those people where you can expect they will be interested. I would not send a WikiProject Star Wars invite to someone I know likes Star Trek - that would be stupid. And all the invite really says is a.) that the user is likely to be interested in ARS and b.) what ARS does. Would you mind telling us how exactly that is not neutral? It does not say "ARS is an inclusionist 'cabal'", nor does it say "ARS is to spam AFDs with keep-!votes" or "ARS is to battle deletionism" or anything... No offense meant but I think you are reading something into the message that the message itself does not say. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Bad example; someone with a Star Trek template on their talk page is already interested in decade-old mainstream science fiction franchises with cult followings.
Why did Ikip choose self-declared inclusionists and only self-declared inclusionists? Why did he send only inclusionists a message saying "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? What shared visions do the people with the AIW and inclusionist userbox have besides inclusionism? He doesn't have to say "I want ARS to be an inclusionist project" outright when he tells inclusionists and only inclusionists that the project matches their vision of Wikipedia, and when the talk page has clearly slanted calls to various article standard discussions elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Contrast what Ikip did with advertising ARS to WP:CSB members, with a mention of the FUTON bias. Or to whatever the music WP is, since bands and albums step up to the bat with two strikes against them if notability is even slightly unclear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you kind of have to read between the lines. No one is going to be so stupid as to say "please join this project so we can disrupt the deletion process because we are all inclusionists who think notability is bad" If you are holding out for that, you might be waiting a while. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a bad idea to move this to a less visible venue which is going to naturally be inclined to defend any effort to advertise it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Black Kite 10:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm gunna go with SoWhy on this one. The invites themselves aren't canvassing, now if they start rolling around like the "Keep brigade" without actually adding references and proving notability, then there's a problem. But that bridge has not presented itself yet. –xeno (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Xeno; it seems several editors here are second-guessing what other editors intend to do, and guessing that those intentions are bad. That seems to me the polar opposite of WP:AGF. If there's a problem here, it's the lack of good faith being assumed by User:A Man In Black et al. Certainly no admin action required (yet). waggers (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Help me out, then. What's the good-faith reasoning for advertising a non-partisan project to (and only to) self-identified partisans of one side with the message "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? I admit I can't see it, but I came to WP:AN because I believe I could be missing something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Because that group is more likely to join ARS than a group that self-identifies as one that wants to delete articles? Because he thought inclusionists are more likely to want to keep borderline notable articles by improving them? As we have already (see above) ruled out that he can't have done it to manipulate AFDs (because they are closed by strength of argument and not numbers), I don't see any good-faith reason to assume anything other than maybe an unclear writing style. It is quite sensible to believe that a project which attempts to rescue articles rather than to delete them might be more attractive to editors who have self-identified as willing to work on less-prominent topics and it is thus more logical to invite those users than all users. SoWhy 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"He canvassed inclusionists because canvassing deletionists is a dumb idea" is a false dilemma and based on false premises, although I suppose it makes for a good-faith misguided reason to advertise to that group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
He's advertising to those most likely to join, in an attempt to drum up support for a project that ultimately improves articles and by extension, the encyclopedia. (Perhaps he will broaden his invite set at a later date, at this point, he's going for low hanging fruit). I think there is no action required here unless the ARS starts canvassing eachother on actual deletion debates. –xeno (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing in general is frowned upon. "Frowing upon" at wikipedia has all the deterent effort of frowning at your television. However, I see this as an attempt at a countermeasure to the typical bullying tactics employed by the deletionists, who I'm sure watch the AFD nominations pages with eager anticipation, so canvassing them would be redundant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And they sacrifice cats, too. Sheesh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, right now, the tools for that canvassing exist, for good-faith purposes. The project already has a template to add an AFDed article to a list of AFDs transcluded on the user or talk page of most of the project's members. That's why I have some qualms. A partisan Wikiproject isn't a big deal. A Wikiproject that keeps broadly-defined, criteria-less lists of borderline AFDs isn't a problem, as long as there's a reason for them to do so. A partisan project that keeps such lists is a problem, and it's much easier to head off efforts that would make that project more partisan than to close the barn doors afterward. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
this isn't canvassing , "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."xeno (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep reading down the page. I even use the same terminology as that page; I picked up "partisan" from the last time I re-read it in depth. This is a mass posting to self-declared partisans, and with an outlined possible negative effect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the invitations are not an invitation to participate in a community discussion, which is the crux of canvassing. –xeno (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure. The invitations are to go to WP:RESCUE, on which there are several invitations to participate in community discussions, such as this. yandman 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If someone from the ARS setup a mailing list, or posted all over their "members" pages something along the lines of "Oh my God ... article WP:Foo is at AfD, everybody go !vote against its deletion now!", then that would be canvassing. Inviting people to join is common across many groups...targetting specific people makes perfect sense. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The project has an automatic template for "Article Foo is at AFD, give it your attention" with no practical criteria for addition to this list. It is intended for use on user pages or talk pages, and any time an article is tagged for the attention of the project it is automatically linked from the user/talk page of everyone with this template.
This is why efforts that would make it a partisan project are problematic; if the project is Inclusionist Task Force, then this is automated partisan canvassing for borderline AFDs. (I realize I've shifted here from Ikip's intent to the effects of his actions, but both would be cause to end the advertising to people with partisan userboxes.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As unpopular as it might be right now, I would have to say I agree with AMIB's concerns. This is clearly WP:CANVASSING to get more inclusionist Wikipedians involved in the project. At some point WP:TINC has to come into play, though. For what purpose he is canvassing, we can't prove. Perhaps he wants to involve mroe editors that he feels might be interested in the project, as he claims, or perhaps he actually does want to stack the votes at AFD in favour of keeping borderline articles. Only time will tell for certain. However, his attempts to notify users who responded to his invitation about the thread at AN/I is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. That act in itself diminishes my capacity to WP:AGF, as i'm sure it must for others as well. Saying "Hey, there's a discussion to block me from inviting more editors like you, you should look at it" poisons the well. That said, AMIB's concerns are, in my opinion, valid and logoical ones. Firestorm Talk 15:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was never notified about this thread; I stumbled upon it when I checked my Talk page history, and subsequently looked at Ikip's Talk page, since Ikip didn't sign his invite - all I got was four tilda's. Anyway, iit's good to know about the ARS, I think it can be a useful tool in building an encyclopedia if it results in consensus and improved articles, and I have no problem being "canvassed." Radiopathy (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, when I took a closer look at WP:CANVASS, there are some violations, and admin intervention, if any, should only focus on those, specifically, the issue of neutrality and "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages." I don't think vote stacking is an issue here, and I still don't consider this to be disruptive canvassing. Radiopathy (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not needed. If anything we have a stunning assumption of bad faith here in a thread initially started by someone from the category of deletionists against someone who was once named "inclusionist." More unnecessary partisanship. Someone (Ikip) is trying to get more participation in a project that seeks to improve articles. Aren't we here to do that, i.e. improve articles? Isn't that the whole point? Now, granted not all members will actually work to improve articles, but some like myself do and will. I for one would appreciate greater participation in those efforts as there are times where I am the only one doing the actual referencing and revising and my hope, like I believe Ikip's, is not to just get a bunch more keeps in AfDs, but rather to get help from those who are willing to actually work on the articles. If the end result is that articles nominated for deletion are actually improved, then what the heck? AfD is not about trying to win arguments and get articles deleted at all costs. Rather, it's about deleting those for which improvement cannot happen. As such nominators should not be bent on seeing it deleted, but should be happy and open-minded when their concerns are addressed and the article is saved. Thus, Ikip is taking a proactive and good faith effort to improve our project's content. He is being considerate to his fellow editors by notifying them of something that may be of interest to them and a way for them to help our project. That should be encouraged if anything. Calling the Article Rescue Squadron some kind of inclusionist tool would be akin to calling Articles for Deletion a deletionist tool. Why don't we assume good faith all around and get back to actually building an encyclopedia? Are we here to do that or play inclusionist versus deletionist war games? I'm hoping the former. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't inclusionist vs deletionist (for the record, I am neither). The issue is whether or not this user violated WP:CANVASS by first inviting only inclusionists to the project, and then notifying some of them that this thread existed, so that they could come comment on it. If it were just the first incident, then it would be easy to WP:AGF. However, the second occurrence after he knew about the policy does seem to diminish our capacity to assume that he is acting in good faith. Firestorm Talk 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the above comments have lost sight of the basics of deletion policy. Deletion is a las resort, and it is always a good idea to try to improve an article. The effort will not always succeed. For more than half of what comes to Afd, it will not succeed, because the articles are unimprovable. People, as they get experience, will try on only the improvable ones. If the banner is used excessively, the effort will be wasted altogether. I do not consider everything on which the banner has been used as a good choice for improvement--but then, I've sometimes been wrong and seen something I think hopeless actually get sourced adequately. If there is concern that the project is being used wrong, then those with such concern should join to see it used better--I have sometimes joined projects I think are being too partisan in the effort to encourage objectivity.
As for notification about the project, the project was not hidden from people of different views. The banner was used, and anyone who follows afd must have been aware of it. It is fair to assume all people interested in deletion follow afd. I see it more of an appropriate challenge: OK, you say you're an inclusionist--let's see you do some actual work to improve articles.
As for notification about this thread, while it is policy that discussions here should be notified to those affected, going by deletionist/inclusionist userboxes, was ill-advised. But I do not think it serious, as AN/I is not subject to vote stacking the way Afd is. DGG (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a quick point - of what I was talking about further up - at least one of the users that was "recruited" to the ARS today has been through the list of tagged articles and !voted "Keep" on every single one except the two that are irredemably doomed. Most of the Keeps have non-rationales, the majority being "per above". He was obviously paying so much attention that he also !voted Keep on the wrong AfD for one article that had been closed since 2006. Now OK - most admins will ignore such !votes, but with the knowledge that you will be carted off to DRV if you so much as close any AfD which has numerous Keeps as Delete, then is it no wonder that there is an increasing tendency to go for the safe "No Consensus" option? Black Kite 19:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Butting in a bit late but I don't see a problem here. A self-declared inclusionist is someone who wants to save articles. The ARS is there to save articles from deletion. Makes perfect sense to me that an invitation to join ARS would be sent to inclusionists. Asking them to put their money where their mouth is - so to speak. It's not as if AfD is a vote (if it is, it shouldn't be) and, presumably, after the ARS has done with its referencing or editing, the result would be judged purely on its merits. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • However, if it results in editors - as I've pointed out just above your comment - blitzing AfD with Keep votes with poor or no rationales, and making no attempt to actually improve the articles, doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem? If people recruited this way actually follow the guidelines of the ARS, then that's great, but ... Black Kite 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh boy, this is exactly what I did not want this to turn into. I posted a request about WP:CANVASSING, not a referendom on the ARS or an attempt to spark a debate about inclusionists and deletionists. I posted here in an attempt to get an immediate decision on what Ikip was doing was right or wrong and to have action taken against him while he was canvassing. It seemed like a clear-cut case. I didn't actually expect people to defend what I see as a major and blatant violation of the behavioural guidelines. I'm very disturbed that a large amount of users here are defending him just because they agree with his cause, even though his cause was never my issue, it was his behaviour. Themfromspace (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, back to what I said: he didn't need to make reference to inclusionists in his tag, and should not have "personalized" each one - or mine, at least - with the editor's user name. Bring him up to speed on policy with regard to the actual hard issues. Just because I'm not outraged by what this editor has done doesn't imply that I'm defending him; I'm assuming good faith with respect to getting articles improved and don't anticipate (or anticipate participating in) "Keep spamming." Radiopathy (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a bit unfair. I do have a slight philosophical inclination toward keeping articles but I'm hardly an inclusionist. Practically the only admin things I've done is to delete lots of articles! However, I can't really see a bias here. Inclusionists are the natural population for members of the ARS and inviting them to join is only natural. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm calling you out. Either prove that ARS exists specifically to spam keeps or stop posting about it. I expect better than crappy straw man arguments. Jtrainor (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Did I say that? No. In fact I specifically said that if people followed the ARS guidelines then that would not be the case. However, did I say that there was a danger that this could happen? Yes. Did I point out that one editor had done exactly that today? Yes. So, your point is? Black Kite 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who are arguing that all projects do this should consider that the template used is not like those from other projects. The problem is with the current wording of the template that is being used:-

Barnstar search rescue.png Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

If this was changed to:-

Barnstar search rescue.png Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rapidly improving articles that have been nominated for deletion, saving articles that might otherwise be lost forever. ~~~~

it would be similar to those used by other projects and quite acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, Face-smile.svg Thank you. This is a good suggestion which I am doing now, I have begun the arduious task of changing all of the postings, along with grammatical errors,Thanks User:TimVickers and confusing links. [5]
As I mentioned, way, way, way above, I added "Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory)."[6], in the failed hope of appeasing him. I am very open to new suggestions and criticisms. Ikip (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ...but to not be in conflict with the "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages" clause at WP:CANVASS, delete all the code between the brackets after "Hello" - then it complies! I agree, even as an "inclusionist" who got the invite, that the template in its original form goes over the edge in several areas. Radiopathy (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit more. Importantly, it's saving articles "from deletion", not saving articles "for deletion" (which is nonsensical), I also tried to emphasize that people need to edit the article, not just turn up and vote at the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I see no harm in inviting someone to consider participating in a project. Besides, I have not seen any evidence of Ikip's actions resulting in a mad stampede for ARS membership. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
ARS membership increased from 134 to 164 (roughly, Ikip and perhaps others forgot to sign-in previously) since Ikip started his recruitment drive. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, this certainly got political quickly. Still, all the more reason why an organization like ARS should be more broadly advertised - if allegations of cabals and partisanship are being thrown about, much better to do it in the open with wide participation that in small groups on notice boards. MalikCarr (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CANVASSing to me. Ikip needs to stop entirely. Further, the implication by Ikip, and the entire ARS, that only Inclusionists believe in improving articles, or that Deletionists ONLY hang out on AfD, are both idiotic notions. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should be encouraged and applauded for his friendly effort to inform his fellow editors of a project that may interest them and allow them to help build our project. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a partisan group for us deletionists to join? purely to discuss knitting patterns and the like. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's AfD. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean New Page Patrol ;-) Catch'em when they're young! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting my finger on the problem[edit]

My problem with Ikip's solicitation is that he recruited people to a project that should not be about partisan rhetoric, based on the fact that they had partisan rhetoric on their user pages. Admittedly, this is based on my feeling that [inclusion][deletion]ist is partisan rhetoric. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. WP:CANVASS reads "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive."
Now, in choosing to select only "inclusionist" editors to send the template to, he is trying moreso to influence the outcome than to improve the quality. Inclusionist editors are more likely to vote "keep" at an AfD. As has been pointed out already, editors from the ARS routinely vote "keep" at AfDs even when they haven't helped the article out at all
There's a table on WP:CANVASS that I invite everyone to see. It shows the difference between properly informing editors and inappropriate canvassing. Ikip's behaviour falls in the inappropriate category for scale, message, and audience; while only being appropriate for transparancy. If Ikip were to be fair about advertising the ARS (which, as has been pointed out, does have a strong inclusionist bent, which he relies upon), then he would have to solicit people on a small scale, in an unbiased manner (ie: not just to people with inclusionist tags), and make the message neutral (which there was a discussion on doing so earlier in this thread). Only then would his behaviour be appropriate in the way that I read WP:CANVASS. Once again, this is a problem only with his behaviour, and is not meant to be about the ARS, nor about inclusionists and deletionists. Themfromspace (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." ARS is not a community discussion but a project, so the whole point is moot. The assumption that this will lead to more keep !votes in AFDs is just that, an assumption, as is the idea that this will influence admins to start counting !votes instead of judging by strength of argument. So if this problem is a.) just assumed and b.) clearly not in the message, then we should tackle the problem if and when it arises (i.e. if XFDs are really manipulated) and you should really let it go here. It was concluded multiple times now that all these assumptions about possible discussion manipulation are just a "feeling" that cannot be found in the message itself. We have to assume good faith that this feeling is incorrect. SoWhy 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's not be excessively literal here. This was problematic, but it was problematic in misguided good faith. The message about advertising neutrally, both in message and in people solicited, is relevant. It seems to have been learned Ikip's stopped advertising and is rephrasing the messages, and hopefully nothing like this will happen again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me recopy what I wrote above:

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace (the person who created this complaint) is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:
No-spam.png Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I used this very same WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:
Barnstar search rescue.png Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. ~~~~
Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages.
AMIB has in the past couple of weeks attempted to:
  1. demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
  2. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
  3. Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue
These tedious, baseless attacks are getting really old.
AMIBs own extreme bias is clear:
"On cruft: When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". (emphasis my own).[7]
Did't you used to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion before AMIB?
Several editors have attempted to close this ANI. Black Kite even moved it to the WP:ARS talk page, but AMIB, determined to beat a dead horse, reverted this. I suggest AMIB read: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and spend more times contributing to articles, instead of wikilayering ad nauseam.
Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ikip, you really need to work on that temper. On another note, you yourself have just pointed out the problem here. Wikiproject Spam invites were sent to editors who have reverted spam, therefore equating Wikiproject Spam with reverting spam. Seems logical, no? You sent WP:RESCUE invites to editors who have declared they are "inclusionists". Therefore, you equated Wikiproject Rescue with being inclusionist, i.e. trying to redefine what that project is about. Add to this the fact that under your previous incarnation you attempted to merge WP:Rescue with WP:Inclusionists, i.e. the same thing only more blatantly, and AMIB has good reason to be worried. yandman 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think administrator SoWhy said it best:
What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote.
AMIB has good reason to be worried. Just like AMIB is worried that the {{rescue}} template is canvassing? There is a fine line between concern and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
As I also mentioned above, there is absolutly no rule broken by adding one of those 260 templates inviting a user to join a group simply because they have an inclination towards cleaning up spam, or an interest in Africa, or an interst in the Falklands War. The same goes for adding a template on an editor's page who seems to have an inclination towards saving information.
I kindly request that a third party close this discussion. Ikip (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As somebody who has received that invitation, I do not find it uninvited, nor do I feel it to be some kind of 'call to war'. I joined the group because I want to help rescue articles, and probably on a very casual basis. If anything is warlike, I find it to be the aggressive deletionism in which articles AND their histories are wiped out, before anybody is made aware of the issues. Tyciol (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Man. #1 and #2 are completely made up. In fact, I even came to your talk page for advice for rewriting WP:PRESERVE for elegance without changing its meaning. As for #3, it's is a misgiving I also expressed here, and connected with the spamming. This is more than a little sad.

I'm disappointed that Ikip hasn't learned any lesson here, that making things up and begging questions and hurling accusations in every direction are his substitutes for simply ceasing or amending problematic conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

← I don't have the time, energy or dedication to read through all of the preceding commentary, but I would like to echo what User:Tyciol, whom I do not know, said just above. I also was glad to be made aware of the Rescue Squad, because I agree with its aims, and share Tyciol's concern about aggressive deletionism. I have commented in favor of deleting articles from time to time - I support the concept of notability and do not want to see the encyclopedia's value diluted by nonsense or POV pushing - and always view each article, AfD or discussion on its own merits, not slavishly following a principle of inclusionism or any other. But I have seen a rush to delete based on a small coterie of opponents all too often, and find that trend troubling - very often the article in question is wholly save-able. The aim of the rescue squad, it seems to me, is to do just that - improve articles and rescue them from oblivion. It is implicit that they be worthy of rescue. All Ikip did, by bringing this group to the attention of like-minded people, is to let us know that there is an active ongoing project dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia. This was not canvassing in any way, shape or form - no one has asked me to weigh in on any AfD as a result of this invitation - and I suspect that accusation was a form of forum-shopping designed to address something entirely separate. When I was invited to join the Beatles project I didn't think I was being recruited to some kind of army, and although sometimes the discussions there veer in that direction, overall it was a helpful advisory to me that such a project existed. The same is true for the Article Rescue Squad, and these accusations seem absurd on the face of it. Tvoz/talk 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to where most current readers would be. Giggles4U (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder here, AMIB has yet to show any actual violations of policy. Close thread.

AMIB, if you actually think something's wrong here, take it to RFC rather than rabbble-rousing. We have procedures for this kind of thing, procedures which you should follow instead of trying to start a lynch mob. Jtrainor (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[edit]

I have been referred to this board by the help desk board. I will just cut and past the discussion from that board here, as I think the whole discussion can be relevant from your consideration. Thank you.

Please let me know how to handle this case.

There is an IP user who refuses to adhere to the Chinese Naming Convention in relations to naming. In particular, the naming convention says when the name of the country is used, use "Republic of China" and when the location is used, use "Taiwan".

The edit dispute relates to Developed country and High income economy, when this IP user keeps changing the name of the country to "Taiwan". I have asked this IP user to use edit summary and the related discussion page, but he or she has refused to. This IP user keeps on giving me warnings when I reverted his or her edit.

Can Wikipedia rules be used to resolve this? Can blocking be used on this IP user in this case? If it is possible, what are the warning templates to use? Thank you.--pyl (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}, WP:3RRN.. Although in most cases IP editors like these are not editing in bad faith, they are just not aware of the policies so unless the editor is being totally non-responsive its best to try and discuss things with them on talk pages first. –Capricorn42 (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
This IP user is totally non-responsive. I left a message on his talk pages referring to the Chinese Naming Convention. But he still reverted my edit and left warning messages. Please see User_talk: As you can see, this user has a series of warning messages from a number of other editors.
Are there any other things I can do other than the 3-rr rule? Does his behaviour constitute vandalism or removal of content? Is it possible to get an administrator to leave a message on his talk page and ask him to use talk / discussion / edit summary? Thank you again.--pyl (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this is not vandalism but a content dispute. You can get quick administrative attention at WP:ANI or WP:3RRNCapricorn42 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The naming convention doesn't say editors are forbidden to use the term Taiwan. In fact, it says the term is often more accurate and Republic of China has a note at the top saying: "The Republic of China was commonly known as "China" or "Nationalist China" until the 1970s when it has since been commonly known as "Taiwan"." In light of the higher 'use the most common name' policy, I don't see any violations here except perhaps 3RR but they'd have to be told about its existence too. - Mgm|(talk) 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a convention, which means users *should* stick with it. What you are doing is exactly the type of discussion that I would like to be involved with the anonymous IP user, which he has so far refused to do.--pyl (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said, the convention clearly lists possible exceptions so it arguable still sticks to the guideline. Not discussing it, is unforgiveable. A single comment is the very least required in such a heated disagreement. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I will refer this matter to the administrator's notice board and see if they can do something about this.--pyl (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think forum-shopping is going to help, nor is it a wise idea. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not forum shopping. I came here because another editor above suggested this:-
"You can get quick administrative attention at WP:ANI"
And I thought this is the better forum to deal with the matter.

I agree with Mgm that discussions are required to reach consensus, and that's why I am here to see if administrators can provide us with some advice on handling users who do not response or discuss. Since the report is filed, I finally got some sort of response from this IP user and I will see if we can reach some sort of agreement.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First, as I believe Pyl has noted in the past when the convention has not agreed with him, that the convention is still disputed. However, there have been attempts to follow it.

Second, Pyl has misstated the convention. The convention is not that "Republic of China" is always used for the "country". The word "country" is not used in the description of usages for "Republic of China". I'm not saying it was deliberate, because Pyl has stated in other places that he considers "state" and "country" to be the same thing, although I believe a quick check of the dictionary or even the country and state wiki articles will suggest otherwise. The convention is that "Republic of China" is used to refer to the state and the government, and is used political matters. This was long standing in the naming conventions article and was moved as part of an attempt to change thing, but the change never gained concensus. For that reason and because some editors have abusively pushed the "Republic of China" name in all cases despite the NPOV problems, I've put the text back in, though it may be changed because we've never been able to get full consensus. The convention of using "Republic of China" for political matters and Taiwan for other matters was quite successful for a long time and is a reasonable compromise between those who prefer the common name and those who prefer the formal name (and these preferences often have political basis).

If the article were listing types of government, names of the presidents, foreign relations or relations with other government that some might not consider "foreign", etc., then "Republic of China" would be the proper term. But for economics, "Taiwan" is used. Readin (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ignacio Don[edit]

A range of IP/anon editors (possibly all the same individual) have been adding a bio of an Argentinian footballer to Talk:Ignacio Don without there being an associated article. I have flagged the page three times now for speedy deletion but the 186.9. editors persisted. Would it be possible to WP:SALT the page on a temporary basis to encourage them to do it properly (ie. either request page creation, sign up and do it themselves, or try first in a sandbox then request a move). Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You put the deletion notice on the wrong page. It should have gone on the User's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk page deleted. I think the IP is trying to create the page there because they don't realize that they need to register an account to create an article in mainspace. If they recreate the talk page, they should be directed to either a) post the article to WP:AFC or b) register an account. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 18:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion notice in the wrong place? I don't think so: I put {{db-talk}} on the page to be deleted. Perhaps the {{uw-create1}} should have gone on the user talk page, but since I had seen three different IP addresses involved in creating the page, I felt it was more likely to be seen by the user(s) if it was on the page they were editing instead. Astronaut (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning blocked editor, it seems[edit]

Resolved: Never mind, already blocked.

Grandstanding 101 (talk · contribs) just got here today, and his first edit [8] appears to show he's a returning banned editor. From there, his fifth edit was this [9] lovely snipe, where he called another editor "stupid" and "playing retard." Admin attention, please? It seems he's not here to do anything but push his own view and make enemies. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, he's already blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And for the record, blocked as another sock of Manhattan Samaurai. Wow. the self-proclaimed "Lex Luthor of Wikipedia" lasted a whole two minutes this time. We did him quicker than Al Bundy. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay removal of warnings?[edit]

Hello! I just noticed this terse removal of warnings, which appear to refer to such comments as this. Is that an appropriate response to the warnings? I'm reluctant to ask the editor on userpage given the way he removed the previous comments. Anyway, there seem to be some other hostile comments elsewhere, such as this. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Editors are allowed to remove warnings on their talk page. This person does seem to have some rudeness issues though. Reyk YO! 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The edit summary is uncivil, but the removal itself permitted per WP:BLANKING. –xeno (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Blanking warnings on one's own talk page is not considered grounds for sanctions, unless they're being used to hide a pattern of misbehavior - we presume that the warnings were read and acknowledged. It may be considered rude if they're blanking personal messages from other users with legitimate concerns. Dcoetzee 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There may be a history of less than civil edits in AfDs. See also this (what's with the Yahoo group link?), this (is "crap" really necessary?), this (is the mocking tone necessary?), this ("rawr"?), etc. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure low-level strong language is anything to get worked too up about. Reyk YO! 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting off-wiki pressure on editors[edit]

I recently posted about the above user's threat to publish inflammatory material if other editors didn't back off. [10].

Same editor has been in direct consultation with an organisation mentioned in the article: "I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing."

Now this statement from said Trustees has appeared off-wiki, repeating unproven claims about the affiliations and hostile motivations of editors here *, as well as making heavy hints about what the article should say about this organisation. Apart from such close communication being probable COI, this smells of attack-by-proxy. Does it come under WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: oh, apparently not here, since (despite precisely matching what he said was discussing with them) the statement doesn't mention Wikipedia by name. Must be some other user-editable "online encyclopaedic resource" with exactly the same dispute then. FX: rolls eyes Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the kind of editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, having no caring about our policies and community ethos. Such people often have a short but turbulent career on Wikipedia. Does WP:BATTLE apply, do we think? as an aside, the article scriptural reasoning needs a complete rewrite or nuking; right now it reads as an unholy mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You could possibly add that slogan to the policy guidelines. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You could possibly be slightly more subtle HalfShadow. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion, should this user be indefinitely blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [11] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Cameron Scott: there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group. The other editors appear to be editing well within WP:NPOV, but it's very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Beautifully put, thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←And on the 8th day Jimbo (and/or Sanger) did createth the wiki. And thine policy shall stateth: Go forth and propagate thine web with great "sum of human knowledge", but be not vain in your efforts. Thou shalt push neither negative, nor positive OR, but rather provide great NPOV. (ohhh I hope the big guy upstairs don't get mad about that post!) — Ched (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread is just great. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Reading the posted document, it is not just a matter of propaganda in favor of this religious group, but a question of there being two rival groups, the one that posted the message, the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its sponsor,the "Interfaith Alliance UK" (which cooperates with a loosely associated US organization, ""Interfaith Alliance"; and on the other hand the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its "Cambridge InterFaith Programme". The matter at controversy is the relative importance of the two, and also whether, as the SRS claims, the term "Scriptural Reasoning" is generic for reading the scriptures of various faiths in parallel. Given all this, I would therefore not make any assumptions about which edits to the article are the fair ones. I of course do support the present block, and it is possible that other editors may need similar attention. In any case, i would not disparage any of them, & I think the two immediately preceding comments ought to be retracted. Obviously, as dougweller says, people from outside both must do the editing here. DGG (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And this is indeed reflected in the edit history of the article, and the WP:SPAs who have edited it. So, should we banninate the primary warrior here? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I approve of the indef block as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1 has just left a notice on my talk page about this discussion and directing me to it, so not sure whether I am supposed to post here, but he has posted. I have already posted details on my talk page about this incident [12] so not intending to repeat at length.
Given that that Trustees have clarified that they were informed having received a telephone call from someone from the "Inter Faith Network of the UK" of which the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" and "St Ethelburga's Centre" are both affiliated member organisations (both are also part of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and both have been critiqued by me in past edits of Scriptural Reasoning) ---- the question arises exactly how did this happen? So who exactly put the "external pressure on a Wikipedia editor"? You might therefore want to clarify this from the other users on Scriptural Reasoning since with the exception of Gordonofcartoon they are all stalwarts of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and Thelongview works for the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which is a nice coincidence.
Also a nice coincidence is how on 27 November 2008 and immediately around that time, after 20 months previously of quiet and low activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden Thelongview (at that time Nsa1001) arrived and immediately concurrently Mahigton and Laysha101 (new user to Wikipedia), all three of whom admit to knowing each other and are part of the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" group. Not long thereafter, other brand newly registered users, all very familiar and supportive of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" position -- and all editing together. External pressure?
The article Scriptural Reasoning has been a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning and exaggerated the practice's importance and originality (SR is nothing original nor practiced by thousands), and as DGG there is a dispute between the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which claims ownership of SR and the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford Group) which claims that SR is just a name for something loads of others have done.
I'm not all that bothered about being "banninated" so do go ahead. But what I don't think is acceptable is for others who have been rather cleverer and less stupidly open about what I think and which of my friends I talk to, to get away with a biased promo article for Scriptural Reasoning. In fact to save you all the hassle....I shall delete my happy jolly days chaps...and tatty bye...(arseholes)

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has requested that their user talk page, User talk:Scripturalreasoning be deleted under CSD U1, but U1 does not apply to user talk pages unless RTV is invocted, but given the above, I do not think the user talk page should be deleted; I especially don't think it's right that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is to be thrown in my face when I question the deleting admin's deletion of the page.— dαlus Contribs 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have restored it as being part of an ongoing dispute, it can be nuked once this has all died down. I don't think the deleting admin was made aware of the controversy in which the user is embroiled. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly object to this page being deleted. The user has not vanished. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins inappropriate comments in this thread[edit]

A number of administrators / other responding parties violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL using comments such as "fuck right off".

It is entirely possible to respond to abuse cases such as this one without insulting the party who caused the problem. Using insulting and abusive language violates Wikipedia's policies and degrades the quality of participation in the community and the communities' values.

This is not acceptable behavior here or anywhere else. Please do not do it again. HalfShadow is getting a warning - others should consider your own actions and participation in the abusive subthread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they were not setting the most open mood possible, but I doubt those comments constituted WP:CIVIL vios, and certainly not WP:NPA violations. It was indirect speech anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity. HalfShadow 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Charming to respond to a WP:CIVIL notice by violating WP:CIVIL again. It's times like this I wish I had admin powers. THF (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
They're (the admin powers) not as cool as they sound. Sure, they help us impress chicks, but that's about all. - CHAIRBOY () 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's one other possibility, but he types too well for that to be likely. And it's times like this that I wish I had a unicorn. There's never a wrong time for a unicorn. HalfShadow 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between simply using the (cover your ears, children!!) f-word!!! and an actual incivil personal attack - in much the same way that there's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between a painting of a knife and stabbing somebody in the face. It may take some deep rumination, but I'm confident that you - and others who enjoy being the first to fling around wikilinks to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - can grow to understand it. =) Badger Drink (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The civility and personal attacks policies are not a black and white spectrum. The original abuses above were neither as blatant nor as specific as many in the past.
However, there is a renewed emphasis in policy circles that the policies are real, serious, that we mean it (from Arbcom at the top through normal admins and editors), and that the at times and in places rampant abusive behavior on wiki especially in admin forums has to stop.
There is nothing in this thread that required or justified rude language or abuse of the problem account.
HalfShadow's initial behavior was across the line but not horribly abusively so. His choice of responses to the initial warnings was most unfortunately less ambiguous. His behavior has a problem - he needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, please count my !vote in support of the block given by GWH, though I won't be participating in the ensuing wikidrama. THF (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete overreaction. Block should be undone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And even if a block was warranted here, GWH should not have been the one doing it. J.delanoygabsadds 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocking on the original issue would have been a complete overreaction. A reasonable discussion (which Deacon, to be fair, started) as to whether the original conduct warranted a warning or not is fine. An edit summary suggesting another editor is insane and a comment suggesting another editor is insane are however evidence that HalfShadow has a problem with civility and NPA. As direct responses to an editor warning them about civility... He proved my point.
Admins are not conflicted out of taking admin actions on the grounds that someone they warned (after no prior interaction or conflict) turned around and got abusive on them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed as well. The use of "fuck" in this thread was problematic, but certainly not blockable of itself. I see nothing else here that shows that HalfShadow should have been blocked, it looks purely punative for the use of salty language, and I see no evidence of it being warrented. 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. HalfShadow wasn't blocked for saying "fuck." He was blocked because he insulted two editors who asked him to be more polite. If we're going to take WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously, it needs to be enforced. There's no excuse for repeated abuse of experienced editors, and we don't do enough to cut it off at the pass, which is why so many editors burn out. THF (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems that no one really took note of or had much of an issue with the usage of the word fuck and such, til this admin decided to blow it up into a subsec of the existing discussion. Sometimes the waggling of the "thou shalt not" finger does more to inflame than the original act could ever manage. All in all, an egregiously bad block if I have ever seen one. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

::Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talkcontribs) Striking out inadvertent extraneous text. Not sure how that happened. THF (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow is quite often uncivil and left cynical and unhelful comments here, so I don't wonder he is blocked for his incivility.--Caspian blue 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I see HalfShadow's comments here as being largely satirical. However, when the targets of that satire don't see the humor in it, then it can be time to... "walk right off" for awhile. Before someone else makes you take that walk. On the other hand, if one is having a bad day or week, then in being compelled to take that walk for a short time (24 hours, for example), there is no real harm done, and it can be therapeutic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he has to take the walk for 24 hours from here. Not bad decision.--Caspian blue 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The comments here can be read that way now that I reread with that in mind. His responses on his talk page don't indicate that to me, though.
I don't want to step on people just being satirical, but if that was what he had in mind he should have said so after the warning, or at least after the block, and he's instead defending himself on his talk page saying that the block was inappropriate because I was in conflict with him (because I warned him once??). I would think that he'd be likely to have explained himself then if his original intent was satire. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going strictly by what he said here, and I gather he doesn't always know where the "line" is. I don't always know either, and that's when I've been blocked. If I were him, I would do as I have done when I've been blocked: find something else to do for 24 hours. It's Saturday. Go to the movies. Go shopping. Help the economy. Wikipedia will likely still be here upon expiration of the block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you plan on commenting on his talk page, per request? seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I did with the block warning. He deleted that from his talk page, along with previous warnings by me and THF, as he is entitled to do under the userpage policy. I generally try to avoid interfering with an unblock request from one of my blocks that's active - that's for other admins to decide.
If there a specific other request up here for me to ask him / talk about? I don't have a problem with engaging in more discussion with him on his talk, if he will actually discuss something and not just delete it again. What do you suggest I ask or suggest? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

civility break 1[edit]

Without commenting on the comments or the block at this point.... I remember responding to a WQA sometime ago that was filed against HalfShadow mid-last year. I'd initially suggested that if there were still problems, that it went to RfC, and that a friendly reminder would be enough - but based on his responses to that reminder (which were plain - not satirical), I ended up closing it as "stuck - hopefully the incivility would cease" and advised the filing party to bring it straight to a noticeboard the next time there was a problem. This may be irrelevant given that it was so long ago, and I can't find the link, but wanted to note it just in case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Google, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:HalfShadow. THF (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a fuss about nothing - "fuck right off" just means "go away", it's not aimed at one particular person. And in that sense, many people should fuck right off in regards to their conduct here - the block was pathetic and should be overturned immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As is noted in the block message and above, the block was for insulting other editors (violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Kcowolf (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • George is right: rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some, so we are asked to keep it out of anything that might be construed as an "official" procedure or discussion. Even I have worked that one out by now, and I am pretty dense in that regard. I always italicise right anyway. Yes, we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the block on its merits, too, though it would be better if someone other than one of the insulted users had issued it. Because admins are prohibited from blocking users they are in a conflict with, I'm granting HalfShadow's unblock request, but I'm also reinstating the block as a block of my own.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the block...when writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. This brings into play the issue of swearing on the talkspace. Swearing, not by vandals, but by editors to make a point or give emphasis. But it (swearing) brings with it its negative connectors and responses and the conversation starts downward. Dignity is required in this process; we should seek to engender goodwill and approval, co-operation, not the opposite. This is an adult environment, not a saloon. There is really no good argument to the contrary. Administrators should convey propriety not bad examples. BTW... fuck right off means fuck right off. If he typed Go away it would have required fewer keystrokes and would have been less agitating!--Buster7 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we fucking serious? We blocked half-shadow for that? (the two diffs noted on his talk page). Come on. I'm not inclined to think that what he wrote there was appropriate, but we have to accept that multiple perceptions of these boards exist. Some people think of them as places akin to a judge's chambers, where arguments and positions are presented in a semi-official manner. Some people feel that they are simply a mechanism for notification of admins and interested editors. Some people feel that they are a watering hole. These have subjective interpretations have varying levels of acceptance and legitimacy, but we certainly don't need to engage in some heavy handed nonsense in keeping the "f-word" off of them. Unbelievable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No comment on the block, but there is far too much unnecessary sarcasm and snarky commentary on WP:ANI, and oftentimes it crosses the murky line into incivility. I would put HalfShadow's comments in this thread into that catchall category. Poking fun at another productive contributor is not appropriate (i.e. comments on Georgewilliamherbert's sanity). Wikipedia is not censored, and WP:ANI is not censored, but it's not appropriate to stop by WP:ANI just to leave a snarky one-liner aimed at someone else. -- Samir 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not a matter of censorship. If someone is claiming censorship, they need to reexamine the evidence. I don't think half-shadow is being "censored" in the sense that someone is using authority to control content or discussion. We are just (rightly, as you note) trying to avoid cynicism and sarcasm in our forums (which project poorly w/o extra-textual clues) and we went too far in conflating "bad language" with malign intent. I don't think half shadow was intending to lower the discourse or demean another person, I think he was intending to be funny and blunt (or funny by way of being blunt). Was it poorly received? Clearly. Was it a bad idea? Probably. Was it something so wrong as to prompt a somewhat officious "warning" which devolved into an inappropriate block? NO. Suggesting that someone has taken leave of their faculties in leveling a warning is uncivil (borderline, IMO), but not a personal attack (again, IMO). Doing so in an edit summary on your own talk page is relatively harmless (honestly...). Doing so on AN/I is not harmless and half-shadow should have known better. But the impetus for the block ("fuck right off") was an unneeded minor panic over a word used more gently than a former vice president used it with regards to a sitting united states senator. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody was blocked for saying "fuck." (And if Dick Cheney spent a trillion dollars on a fruitless war, would you do so just because he did?) THF (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Saying "fuck" is not blockable (and that comment is not the trigger of this block). But insulting others repeatedly ("you could burst into flames spontaniously", "I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity") is. WP:NPA is policy, and there is never an excuse for violating it. See, generally, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#How to raise the tone of the wiki.  Sandstein  23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I know, THF. You'll note the sentences I spent on the two diffs cited in his block. I referred to the use of the word of curse as the impetus for the whole display which has played out here. And as for sandstein, I understand that NPA can't be violated but we really should treat things in perspective. This whole thing escalated too quickly for stupid reasons all around. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on 2 secs...someone says "Fuck Right Off" to nobody at all, which is not uncivil. Someone says "you could be nicer" and he gives a little sarcastic reply "and you could spontaneously burst into flames", which is NOT an attack, it's sarcasm, meaning "um, not likely". Someone wrongly gives him a warning, and he got a little pissy, and then he gets blocked? A-B-C anyone? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy this whole thread sure went to hell in a handbasket. Suggestion: Everyone just take your hands off the keyboard... and back away very slowly - then look around at the real world. This has gone way off-track. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Handbaskets are fun. Hell...not so much. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ya know, I'm familiar with the lol cat that says "I iz adminz" and "this iz serious bizniz" and all. But this is supposed to be the big boys board. Self-importance doesn't belong here. This whole thing was about a religious posting, and how to handle it. Somehow everyone seems to have lost track of things. Wikipedia: The objective is to be "objective". geesh. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse block per Sandstein. If this was the first time HalfShadow's civility was an issue, maybe a block would be an overreaction in the absence of trying to talk to him (eg; through WQA or other methods). But that's just it; this isn't the first time - attempts to discuss it with him have been unsuccessful. Per Guy; rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some...we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI, the block expired some hours ago anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah...seeing I did end up reviewing this, thought I'd note my view for the record before this is archived. Ncmvocalist (talk)
        • I wonder about the value of contesting blocks that are 24 hours or less. It's not like they're going to undergo withdrawal or something. Or maybe they will. I was thinking maybe there should be restrictions on contesting short blocks. The risk there, though, is that overzealous admins (if there are any) might take it as license to block more freqently and more frivolously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't contesting the block, just the blocker. And vocalist take heart in the knowledge that your thoughts and opinions have no value to me. That goes for THF and Caspian, too. HalfShadow 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
HalfShadow, if one is blocked for making personal attacks on an administrative noticeboard, it is unwise to return to the same thread with more personal attacks. I was about to re-block you, but I don't want to sound like a broken record, so I invite any other administrator who concurs with my assessment to do so.  Sandstein  18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not a 'personal attack' to state an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is 'wanted' or not. Calling them a name would be a personal attack. Suggesting their intelligence is flawed would be a personal attack. Simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value to me isn't; it's simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value. I have nothing more to say on the subject: I simply do not care. HalfShadow 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I also fail to see the attack. Yes, HalfShadow could perhaps be a bit more civil. However, other people could just learn how to appreciate sarcasm instead. I see nothing in this discussion that was a clear personal attack (meaning that it was malintentioned). The way I see this thread, HS was being sarcastic, people got pissed, he responded with more sarcasm, people got even more pissed and warned him rather than WP:AGF, and then he understandably got a little upset about it. All in all, this doesn't seem like an issue that we can't move past. Firestorm Talk 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
HalfShadow made his point quite clearly last year (in the WQA thread cited at the top) - I never assumed that changed. But I suppose I should be the one to break the news: my thoughts and opinions in this thread were written purely for the community; it really is of no consequence whether he, the subject of the thread (who ended up blocked), considers them valuable or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The surprising thing is that there's any controversy over this. Dropping an f-bomb is problematic enough, but it crosses the line to follow up with insults at two people who've asked for greater politeness. When and if WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA get downgraded from policies to suggestions then rudeness may reign supreme at this site. Until then, Usenet is thataway. Kudos to Sandstein for doing it right (Georgewilliamherbert really should have recused). DurovaCharge! 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One would imagine that those most sensitive to rudeness would be those least likely to block as an involved admin. Or does politeness just apply to those who prefer Joyce to Austen? I dunno, seems like a "he was uncivil, so he doesn't deserve my civility" argument completely undermines what the CIVILity Brigade is on about most of the time, and just goes to show you how these endless debates are much more about silly little power-struggles ("ooh, I get to get this guy in trouble! Teacher, teacher! *puts on best 'wounded' face*") than they are about people's wounded psyches. Badger Drink (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrying a Move Request[edit]

Goran.S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Goran.S2 has posted a link to a Talk:Ana Ivanović#Requested move at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Serbia, a group he knows to share his opinions. He had previously done this with a similar discussion at Novak Djokovic, which has since turned into a battleground between Eastern Europeans and WP:UE supporters. I asked him to remove his message as inappropriate canvassing at the Move Request discussion and at his Talk page, but he has refused.

Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

In a similar vein, User:Biruitorul alerted a friend to the same Requested Move to votestack the opposition, as seen here. When brought up on the Talk page, the friend, clearly misunderstanding votestacking, says it's okay because 'Biruitorul knows that I have taken part in all such "let's drop the diacritics" debates in the past, and I have made my opinions clear for each and all to read.', which confirms that Biruitorul was contacting someone he knew to share his beliefs.

I hate to see this discussion turn into a war beyond its worth, but the canvassing is clearly meant to turn it into such. It seems like a common-sense example of WP:UE to me, but the discussion so far has not been very constructive, and with the latest developments, it appears to have lost any chance of being so. Any advice? --Yano (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see myself hauled before this tribunal again. Neither Göran nor I told anyone how to vote; we were merely informing parties we knew to be interested of an ongoing debate (which, I might add, is itself being conducted in rather sly fashion by Yano, taking one article after another and proposing that diacritics be removed thence, instead of centralizing the discussion somewhere). Surely there's nothing wrong with that? After all, no one can know what's going on across Wikipedia at all times. Dahn even confirmed I did not canvass him, and no one has bought the canvassing charge in Göran's case (on the contrary).
So can we dismiss the case already and move on to more substantive arguments? - Biruitorul Talk 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Biruitorul, I think you've misunderstood votestacking. This seems like a clear example of it, and I included you here in the hopes of making it as clear to you as it is to me. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. As for your second point, there is already consensus on Wikipedia to follow English usage, so accusing me of being sly for enforcing that guideline seems a little over-the-top. --Yano (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is not a vote, and I've read the canvassing guidelines many a time, thank you very much. Regarding the second point: it would be more straightforward for us to have one central discussion rather than bringing up the same issue every week. - Biruitorul Talk 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:UE and the other naming conventions were all discussed by the Wikipedia community before they were adopted through consensus. That central discussion you wanted already took place, and it was in favor of common usage. If you want that to change, then renew the debate on a wider scale. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't have much to do with ANI, and in any case, we use diacritics routinely, regardless of usage. Nothing wrong with that, provided redirects exist. - Biruitorul Talk 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Baselessly claiming that readers of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Serbia cannot or will not support WP:UE and framing this dispute as "Eastern European vs. upholders of WP:UE" is both offensive and only serves to poison the editing atmosphere around the discussion.

The message left at the wikiproject was a single neutral notification at a general venue, and thus not a breach of WP:Votestacking. That you happen to believe that the audience of this message will not respond to it in an unbiased fashion is a personal prejudice, and nothing more. The only admin intervention required is a watchful eye on the discussion, to prevent a discussion on the quality of sources being recast along nationalistic lines. Knepflerle (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response is hinged on the idea that my claim is baseless, but we have seen from evidence that it is not. Your choice of language in characterizing me is also rather extreme: "poison," "offensive," "personal prejudice," etc. I don't believe any of that is an accurate reflection of the issue or my concerns. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if you personally perceive a correlation, this does not imply cause. Extrapolating your observation into stereotyping based on nationality is unfounded.
Just because an editor comes from Eastern Europe does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive. Just because an editor reads a certain national WikiProject does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive.
Framing an editor's interpretation of policy based on their nationality is not an accurate reflection of the editor. Claiming all cogent dissent in this discussion is entirely based on nationality is not an accurate reflection of the issue or their concerns. Knepflerle (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Members of that Project who responded to canvassing in the past prefered the Serbian spelling. It follows that the same person who did the first canvassing would expect a similar turn-out. In essence, User:Goran.S2 was calling for backup. We do not want Talk:Ana Ivanović to turn into the same perennial debate that Talk:Novak Djokovic did following its broadcast at Serbian Wikipedia and Project Serbia, but this is exactly what will happen if these simple matters of WP:UE keep turning into battles of national pride.
Your exercise in logic is also too elementary to accurately reflect the entire situation, because there is more at play than you consider in your scenario. --