add hidden note |
The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) DRV on ARS list |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list]]==== |
|||
:{{DRV links|Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|article=}} |
|||
This was opened once and closed within an hour-and-a-half per WP:SNOW. It was re-opened at my request by the closing admin, but an hour later right as I was composing my delete vote it was closed again. For the sake of convenience I will just put here what I was going to put there: |
|||
{{cquote|text='''Delete''' as a violation of [[WP:CANVASS]]. Before laying out my reasons I want to provide some explanation for why I wanted this re-opened. This discussion was opened as a result of an ANI report I filed and after this was closed per WP:SNOW that ANI discussion was closed because of the MfD. When I raised a second ANI report regarding a specific instance of the editor who created the list using it for a WP:CANVASS violation many editors from the Article Rescue Squadron and a few non-members insisted the MfD close invalidated my concerns about the list being used for canvassing at all. Now, having said that I think first any admin should be sure to compare votes here to [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members|this list of ARS members]]. Four members on that list have already commented here. Two of the other votes say there was no "policy-based reason" for deletion, but this is not true. In fact a [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue|previous discussion]] just a few weeks ago on the rescue tag said plainly that [[WP:CANVASS]] is a legitimate cause for deletion. [[User:Ironholds]] did not use this as a basis for deletion saying there should be more clear evidence of canvassing provided. In that respect, I suggest a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=475984838 here] where I laid out the case for its use in canvassing more plainly. While this is just one instance, it should be noted the case involves the very same editor whose use of the rescue tag prompted the TfD on that ARS tool and who created this list within a day of the TfD resulting in delete.}} |
|||
To add on to that there was a vote by another editor without any real reason just the comment "you've got to be kidding" who also previously voted for keeping the rescue tag. Another editor who previously argued for keeping the rescue tag left a keep vote in the MfD that suggested alternative ways to use the list so it would be "harder to justify" accusations of canvassing, suggesting this was not an impartial vote. When the MfD got re-opened two additional comments were made with one being from yet another ARS member and one saying there was no valid policy reason for deletion, something I was going to address. Furthermore, I should note that while the MfD was clearly a result ''of'' and linked to ''from'' the first ANI report, the nominator did not make any mention of that ANI report that can be seen [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive738#Article Rescue Squadron again|here]], which would have provided another editor, specifically an admin, who clearly believed the list was inappropriate. Upon the relisting I was intending as can be seen above to link to the second ANI report that had several more editors concurring that the list was being used in at least one instance to canvass. Looking further into it, I realize that the most recent closing admin, [[User:Reaper Eternal]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=475629703 left a comment] on the first ANI discussion '''suggesting support for the list''' and thus was clearly [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] with regards to the deletion discussion. At the very least Reaper should have considered that if an editor wanted it re-opened there was good cause for doing so and let it stay up until that editor commented. |
|||
My preference here would be that we just get it '''relisted''' so there can be a new discussion, with some clear note to admins about the likelihood that this issue is liable to get ''a lot'' of votes and so there should be some reasonable time allowed for editors to comment, at least a day if not more in my opinion. An hour-and-a-half or an hour is clearly a bit faster than normal. Given that this DRV is liable to be subjected to the same flood of editors I will be listing it at the village pump. [[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:01, 11 February 2012
10 February 2012
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
- Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was opened once and closed within an hour-and-a-half per WP:SNOW. It was re-opened at my request by the closing admin, but an hour later right as I was composing my delete vote it was closed again. For the sake of convenience I will just put here what I was going to put there:
“ | Delete as a violation of WP:CANVASS. Before laying out my reasons I want to provide some explanation for why I wanted this re-opened. This discussion was opened as a result of an ANI report I filed and after this was closed per WP:SNOW that ANI discussion was closed because of the MfD. When I raised a second ANI report regarding a specific instance of the editor who created the list using it for a WP:CANVASS violation many editors from the Article Rescue Squadron and a few non-members insisted the MfD close invalidated my concerns about the list being used for canvassing at all. Now, having said that I think first any admin should be sure to compare votes here to this list of ARS members. Four members on that list have already commented here. Two of the other votes say there was no "policy-based reason" for deletion, but this is not true. In fact a previous discussion just a few weeks ago on the rescue tag said plainly that WP:CANVASS is a legitimate cause for deletion. User:Ironholds did not use this as a basis for deletion saying there should be more clear evidence of canvassing provided. In that respect, I suggest a look here where I laid out the case for its use in canvassing more plainly. While this is just one instance, it should be noted the case involves the very same editor whose use of the rescue tag prompted the TfD on that ARS tool and who created this list within a day of the TfD resulting in delete. | ” |
To add on to that there was a vote by another editor without any real reason just the comment "you've got to be kidding" who also previously voted for keeping the rescue tag. Another editor who previously argued for keeping the rescue tag left a keep vote in the MfD that suggested alternative ways to use the list so it would be "harder to justify" accusations of canvassing, suggesting this was not an impartial vote. When the MfD got re-opened two additional comments were made with one being from yet another ARS member and one saying there was no valid policy reason for deletion, something I was going to address. Furthermore, I should note that while the MfD was clearly a result of and linked to from the first ANI report, the nominator did not make any mention of that ANI report that can be seen here, which would have provided another editor, specifically an admin, who clearly believed the list was inappropriate. Upon the relisting I was intending as can be seen above to link to the second ANI report that had several more editors concurring that the list was being used in at least one instance to canvass. Looking further into it, I realize that the most recent closing admin, User:Reaper Eternal, left a comment on the first ANI discussion suggesting support for the list and thus was clearly involved with regards to the deletion discussion. At the very least Reaper should have considered that if an editor wanted it re-opened there was good cause for doing so and let it stay up until that editor commented.
My preference here would be that we just get it relisted so there can be a new discussion, with some clear note to admins about the likelihood that this issue is liable to get a lot of votes and so there should be some reasonable time allowed for editors to comment, at least a day if not more in my opinion. An hour-and-a-half or an hour is clearly a bit faster than normal. Given that this DRV is liable to be subjected to the same flood of editors I will be listing it at the village pump. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)