Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature

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

The result was Delete Blatantly disruptive attempt to game the system, and now blanked by its own creator.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature

Delete. Blatant attempt to write a how-to-canvass-and-get-away-with-it guide, by an editor who has just been engaged in a rather creative attempt at canvassing (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per above SGGH ^ping! 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep this a continued bad faith attempt to harass and bully me, by an editor who has recently sent me to ANI. Explaining the rules and guidelines is not breaking the rules, the only editor breaking the rules is Brown haired girl. Okip 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep is invalid after good faith deletes. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close then. Okip 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - nomination stinks of WP:POINT, no policy given. The page looks perfectly fine to me. Jeni ^(talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete a howto for votestacking, any carification belongs at WP:CANVASS not under the umbrella of a group whose stance on inclusion is not universally popular or accepted. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• 'Speedy keep There are lots of things wrong with this page (for example, it fails to explain that messages posted must be neutral - which Okip's in the ongoing discussion absolutely were not), but seriously, BHG, no need to delete it. Aiken ♫17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  Even if was reworded so that it didn't contradict WP:CANVASS, it would then be no more than a fork of WP:CANVASS.

  Why fork guidelines? If Okip wants to help others to approach notifications responsibly, why not just post a link to WP:CANVASS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  It's a newsletter of a Wikiproject. It's not a problem if what's written there is fixed to be less biased. Aiken ♫ 17:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I see the page as an attempt to circumvent policy. WP:CANVASS contains all the information one needs on how to do it properly and how not to do it, to create another page (regardless of where it is hiding) which advises people to do the same (and is a means of collecting together editors in order to disrupt AfDs that the creator does not agree with, and accuse people who deal withthe user under WP:CANVASS of bullying) amounts to disruptive in my own opinion. SGGH ^ping! 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brownhairgirl, fork rules are for articles, not for essays and newsletters. You know this though! Why do you continue to twist the rules to bully others? SGGH, quoting policy is circumventing policy? Again, in the harassing ANI, you still have not explained how I broke Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people.Okip

You didn't, it is WP:CANVASS that you "broke" as I have said several times. SGGH ^ping! 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'Delete a shocking guide on attempting to game the system. Notifying only people likely to agree with you is votestacking. This does not explain how to follow the guidelines. It encourages votestacking. Dlohcierekim 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Cannot see the rationale beyond codewords ("blatant", "creative", "attempt" twice...). Now to your statement, BHG. The whole set of policies and guidelines are about "making your point and getting away with it". It's what rules are about. The intent of Okip's recommendation is irrelevant; did ne breach any policies? No? Case dismissed. If you don't like losing your cases, beef up your party and plan the strike in advance. NVO (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  Creating a misleading POV fork of a conduct policy is OK, is it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again Brownhaired girl POV forks are for articles, not essays and newsletters. Since I am following all of the rules, your continued bullying is getting very tedious. Okip 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question to nominator. Do you have any policy to back up your deletion argument, or are you being disruptive to prove a point again? Jeni ^(talk) 18:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note What rules are incorrect on this newsletter page? Quoting policy is perfectly reasonable. Brownhairedgirl knows this, yet she continues to harrass me. I am sorry brownhaired girl, that public opinion against your AFDs is going against you. That several of the articles you nominated are being speedy and snow kept. I think that is more of a reflection of your poor judgment in nominating articles for deletion, than me contacting those editors who contributed to the articles you are attempting to delete. Okip 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Several are on the way to being deleted though, Okip. I don't think it's fair to selectively quote policy, as you have done so. There is still no mention that messages must not be biased - the fact that some of yours were is precisely why you were brought to ANI in the first place. It is not difficult to understand. Post neutrally, and to all parties concerned, and you cannot go wrong. Aiken ♫ 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please speedy close this deletion request, directly tied to an ANI against me, is simply another way in which brownhairedgirl is attempting to harrass me for following the rules. Okip 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry Okip, that is unacceptable. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete (ec) This is clearly gaming the system. It exploits loopholes in the canvassing guidelines, violating their spirit in the process. The tongue-in-cheek hint is obvious: only notify editors of articles which you feel might support your "side" in the AfD. ThemFromSpace 18:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep During an argument at [1] someone decided to nominate this page. The discussion should finish over there. And no rule was violated. The rules clearly state you can send a neutral message to everyone involved. If someone has participated in an AFD before, why shouldn't they be contacted the next time someone nominates the exact same article? They were interested in participating last time, so they'll want to know now that someone is getting around the consensus, trying to nominate it yet again. Dream Focus 18:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, if you check my contribs you'll see that I nominated this page as soon as I had completed the ANI posting; I did so because it was clearly a continuation of the canvassing exercise. It's also a pity that you didn't check the facts about Okip's canvassing before making the asserions you just did: WP:CANVASS is clear that a message must be neutral, and Okip's were not. Similarly, Okip did not set out to notify editors who had posted to previous AFDs on the same topic, but to a selected group of editors who had voted his way on related AFDs. He even issued [2] an Article Rescue Squadron invitation to an editor whose identical votes to more than a dozen AFDs appear to have involved no editing to the articles, and show no sign of having read the articles.
  Most of that discussion belongs at AFD, but I nominated this page because it is part of a determined exercise in votestacking.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  • • As mentioned below, I find it ironic that you violate canvas policy with a non-neutral canvassing message:

"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[3] I ask again Brownhairedgirl, as Jani, an editor you accused of "trolling" asked: what policies, are incorrect here? Okip 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete this is clearly a guide on how to vote stack. AniMate 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep this page goes to the heart of the ARS enterprise. They should be able to define content retention standards as they see fit.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Quoting: There is no "all sides" requirement. You can notify anyone who has participated in the discussion that you wish. This statement appears to overtly suggest that it is OK to selectively canvass for AfD, which would be in contravention of WP:Votestacking (which I certainly hope is not a part of the ARS enterprise). That in and of itself is not a policy, but is a consensus guideline for behavior. I am not 100% certain if such behavior is absolute grounds for deletion, though it does have an odor about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I reworded this, using the wording policy below that section. This is in fact, the current policy. Whereas notifying other editors who participated in previous deletion discussions it is required to notify everyone. Thank you for pointing this out. Okip 20:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I am very confused right now. The ANI going on right now with Okip should be considered to be separate from this, as this page should be taken on it's own merits. And on those merits, I see nothing wrong with it. It clearly defines, by the rules, the reasons for informing other editors in terms of AfD discussions and the fact that you should notify everyone involved in an article, so as not to create the illusion of canvassing. I do not see anything wrong with this page in that context and it seems to me that the only reason it is up for deletion is because of the problems some editors are having with Okip, which should have nothing to do with this page. Please do not bring your pointy attitudes into our project. Silverseren^C 20:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a bad faith attempt to game the system, and to instruct others in how to follow suit. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a votestacking guide plus encouragement to use the votestacking guide. The votestacking guide is a terrible idea that we ought not to tolerate, and the encouragement to use it is worse. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As I understand it, the item in question is some newsletter content. Given that our policies and guidelines change all the time in a largely uncontrolled way, they are not tablets of stone and it is fair comment to provide some interpretation of them when communicating with other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Please Note Ironically, the nominator advertised this AFD on ANI with a non neutral canvassing message:
  "I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[4] The nominator would do well to reread canvassing policy about non-neutral messages. And may I suggest, this page, when completed will be helpful to her also to help the nominator's misunderstanding of what canvassing is and is not. Okip 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ikip, grow up. Posting on AN/I is not canvassing. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Refactor the personal attack Tarc please.
      "Posting on AN/I is not canvassing." Where are you getting this rule Tarc? If you don't have a link, then it is obvious your comment can be dismissed as one editors sole opinion, not based on any policy whatsoever. Okip 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It is not a personal attack, grow thicker skin. Also, it it not my job to prove a negative. The burden would be on you to support your assertion that it is canvassing. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am blanking the page, as creator, this means that this page will be deleted. please delete this entry and close the MfD. Okip 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This is a way to stack iVotes and wikilawyer against the canvassing policy. What I feel made me want this deleted was "You are not required to inform all editors who edited the article. You can notify anyone who has participated in the discussion that you wish." This is not true. You have to evenly tell people, both who support and who do not support. Sorry but I think this is an attempt to get around the no canvassing rule. No Okip, do not blank this page please. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • this is why I wrote this page, because of complete incorrect statements like Chrohnie's: personal opinion mask as policy again, anyone, can you provide ANY policy pages and quotes to back up your uninformed opinions? Okip 21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.