Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)

Discussion statistics as of 16:12, 21 May

 * NOTES: Blue background denotes ARS members, (?) indicates my best guess at the user's !vote. Also, please forgive any errors as I was alt-tabbing between the discussion, Excel, and WP:ARS/Members. Feel free to make corrections as necesary.

Summary: 36 !votes for keep or speedy keep, 31 !votes for something else. 43% of the keeps are ARS members; 7% of the others are ARS members.

— Travis talk  16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved my !vote from the 'keep' category to 'RfC'. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was processify per Masem, so moved myself and adjusted totals accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

discussion

 * So, are you also going to highlight "deletionists" and blocked users? -- J mundo 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, this is an incredibly neat way to gauge rough consensus and see the lay of the land, but that bit wouldn't be helpful. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice. One point, though, I voted delete, not historical. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually trekked through all that muck? Kudos. Or, sympathies. Thank goodness for  , I suppose. --EEMIV (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I amended to Delete/Historical. I think "historical" is the way to go.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That does further demonstrate how overwhelming the consensus is to keep here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 37 v 30 is "overwhelming"? — Travis talk  17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means keeps vs. shut it down (historical/delete), which is more like 3:1 in favor of keep by just math. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The discussion is under Miscellany for deletion.  Clearly the overwhelming majority is for something other than redlinking.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I think that it actually highlights the need for an RfC to decide in what form it is kept. — Travis talk  17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That opinion is a minority opinion based on your table, with more support than to redlink, sure, but still a minority. If what we are trying to determine from this discussion is whether or not to redlink the article, then we surely are opposed to that.  As far as what comes next, that seems to lack consensus, but based on past experiences, I have little to doubt that any RfC would be anything but as adversarial as this MfD with yet more time spent raising tensions rather than improving articles.  In any event, the two main opponents in the discussions on ARS reform (A Man In Black vs. Ikip) have now both been blocked.  Who knows, with that dispute away, maybe regular good faith proactive regular talk page discussion can take place now and we should see if that can happen rather than enflame the disagreements further with something like an RfC which right of the bat usual takes an antagonistic approach.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Ikip is not blocked in a bad way, he's just taking one of his routine enforced wikibreaks (I think for school?). rootology ( C )( T ) 17:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know why, but I'd rather not discolse personal information revealed in private confidence. Nevertheless, it is for a lengthy amount of time (72 days...) and most of the criticisms seemed to be against him specifically, so, why not see how the project goes in the meantime?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting spread, you've certainly had some practice with wikitables.
 * I believe Ikip will be out until August. pablo hablo. 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, A Man In Black may have also left the project as his last edit was this. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems not. pablo hablo. 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete remove the above table

 * Since we don't "vote" on Wikipedia, I suggest the above ridiculousness be removed as it seems to imply either canvassing has occurred or that we're only voting for the sake of voting. I've been a member of the project since its creation and dare anyone to prove where my membership means anything more than exactly what it means. Pointing out who is a member and who isn't, is bad faith and disruptive to the process. It would probably be a first, but I won't have any issue with nomming this very page for it's own deletion. I'm appalled that it's an admin that is keeping a running tally of the "votes". - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Maybe you should lighten up a bit. Somewhere in the mess on the discussion page, someone said something about the number of keeps, etc., so I, having a bit of spare time (and wanting practice making wikitables) set about to make a tally sheet. I also thought it would be interesting to see how many of the comments, i.e. !votes, were from non-members of the group. Nothing more, nothing less. — Travis talk  19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. There is no "running tally." This is a snapshot of the comments as they appeared approximately three hours ago. — Travis talk  19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When there has been accusations against the project members of canvassing and being nothing but a voting cabal to save things from deletion, pointing out who is a member and how they voted is in extremely poor taste. That may not have been your intention but that's how it looks. I'm asking you to remove it. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want it gone (or not...)? — Travis talk  19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it. I find it useful as the discussion is quite long. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep it here for now and update as necessary, it's a useful tool to roughly gauge the discussion. Of course, it does not mean we may skip reading and considering the comments and statements made by participants. DDDtriple3 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. I find it useful. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess. No harm and useful info might come out trough some sort of meta analysis. Anyone dare me to slap a tag on it?   Dloh  cierekim  21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it It is a good way to easily see how many people said what, and who they were.  D r e a m Focus  02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Four nominations
As few people in this Mfd seem to think the mere fact there have been 4 nominations means it should be speedy kept. So let's just point out a few facts:


 * 1st nomination was in Sept 2007 with the project just a few months old. The Mfd was swiflty withdrawn by the nominator with barely 10 people having commented, the nominator being gently caressed around the head for not 'getting it'.
 * 2nd nomination, speedy close after only 2 comments, because it only came a few days after the first
 * 3rd nomination, 11 months ago, speedy kept after comments from 14 people, on the basis that The nominator has not provided evidence of abusive or otherwise troublesome actions from the members of this project.. As he notes in his 4th nomination, A Man In Black voted keep in that one
 * 4th nomination. (Now.) Nomination alleges behavioural issues are fostered by the project's membership nature.

The number of commenters in this nomination who opined in any of the previous ones is pretty small. I suggest all who want it kept, and the lid on future nominations permantly closed, focus on refuting the nomination, and not, quite innappropriately voting speedy keep, or saying merely how silly the nomination is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What can be seen in the various edit histories is strong differences of opinion between a very few ARS members and a very few non-ARS members... differences that have become heated and gained a lot of attention. Any conflicts between those involved should not be taken as an indicator that the entire ARS is somehow flawed, as it is just as reflective of the occasionally flawed deletion processes.  Both should be addressed with education.  No sense chastising the work of 440 over the perceived actions of a few.  Better to fix the flat tire than to junk the car.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)