Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 27

27 January 2012

Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag. The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes. The admin's looong comment said very little in many words. The admin received a barnstar for the deletion. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Callaway, first, there was consensus. If you've read my post, you'd know that. Second, I did take into account the votes. If you've read per smy post, you know that. Thirdly, yes; I get barnstars for a lot of my AfD closes, keep or delete, mostly for my willingness to explain things in some detail - which you might want to take into account. And most AfD votes are good-faith and policy based. Being good-faith and policy based is the minimum we expect, not some magical gold standard which proves that the comments are utterly valid and whatever they say should be done. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  I will note that your comments about how important policy is and your implicit accusation of bias conflict rather nicely with the line at WP:DRV reading "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed". It is a shame your enthusiasm for policy and good-faith actions don't extend to writing your own DRV nominations. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  It's really silly to "accuse" Ironholds of receiving a barnstar, as if receiving a barnstar later changed the already-made decision, since Ironholds had zero control over that. What exactly was he supposed to do4? Magically know in advance that he might be thanked and protect his user talk page so that no one could post a barnstar? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: I didn't participate in the discussion, because these typically lead to a lot of drama, and merely participating in such a discussion leads people to question your motives for the rest of your Wikipedia career. But I will participate at this DRV to ensure this dispute is not resurrected. The keep !votes reveal a circular fallacy: "there isn't a consensus that this is canvassing, because all the people that are canvassed by the template say that it isn't canvassing". This circular fallacy is a perennial source of drama when the larger community conducts an RFC (or AFD) about an entrenched and well-organized subcommunity. The closing administrator specializes in large discussions, where finding a consensus requires more than just bean-counting, and drew a conclusion about the consensus that was perfectly reasonable. The essence of the consensus is this: there are better ways to organize a drive to improve an at-risk article without nearly as high a probability of just canvassing blind votes. That's why we're not deleting the entire collaboration, or banning individual editors. It's also why the community is allowing ARS to try a new model, instead of acting in bad faith to stop any efforts to improve articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The discussion was closed on the technical position that it's redundant, and oficially all the arguments for canvassing were removed from the final decission because there was no evidence for such serious claim of canvassing. So I'd like to ask the closing Admin to be coherent with the original decision and not take into account deletion endorsements that are based on the canvassing criterion, or at least recognize that this position couldn't count toward consensus for the original deletion. Diego (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ;). Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh? The above was addressed to the Admin that will close this DRV asking him/her to be coherent with your decision. Did you understand otherwise? Diego (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha; sorry, misunderstood :). Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not contradicting that. Just because we didn't delete the template purely on the basis of canvassing, it doesn't mean the admin didn't take into account the fact that there are ways to rescue articles without using a template that increases the potential for canvassing. (e.g.: the heat vs. light argument.) It also doesn't mean that the issue of potential canvassing didn't affect the weight we afforded to the keep arguments, particularly with the circular problem that "we canvassed enough people to fight the consensus that this was canvassing". The canvassing issue can still affect our process, without being the reason for the decision. (But I suppose we could just ask the closing admin.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Closing admin explained his close in great detail, and consensus was heavily toward deletion by both numbers and strength of arguments. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just imagine, if I were to turn up on CallawayRox's user talk page, and leave a barnstar thanking him for opening a DRV. Then I could come back to the DRV and say that CallawayRox got a barnstar for opening the DRV, and, well, nudge nudge, wink wink. The barnstar argument deserves a barnstar for ingenuity. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak overturn to no consensus. I was not involved in the discussion and have no opinion about the contested template's merits. The closer said that the opinions were split 53:34. Numerically, this delete-keep ratio is not a clear "delete" consensus, but rather closer to a lack of consensus. Still, it is in the range in which closers may weigh the strength of the arguments and give them more or less weight, as the case may be, to arrive at either a "no consensus" or a "delete" outcome. The closer's explanation is one which I personally find persuasive on the merits. But my understanding has always been that an assessment of the strength of XfD arguments must be clearly explained as based on applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than on the closer's preferences, or else it is simply a "supervote". This is even more important in discussions to which nearly 100 people contributed, because in such cases the numerical outcome is more likely to approximate actual project consensus than in discussions with fewer contributors. Here, the closer did not frame their assessment of the strength of the respective arguments in terms of a clear analysis of the arguments in the light of the policies and guidelines that apply to the issue at hand (if any). As such I cannot be fully confident that the closer did not use the closure as a "supervote", and would therefore overturn the closure to a finding of no consensus.  Sandstein  18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry I didn't explain clearly; I did try to. The TL:DR reason was that TfD policy gives irrelevance as a reason for a template's deletion, and keep !voters could not show that the Rescue template actually added functionality in the field. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay... which TfD policy do you mean? WP:TfD is not labeled as policy and does not mention "irrelevance".  Sandstein  19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"The template is redundant to a better-designed template". Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... the TfD page is still not policy, but I now understand how you assessed the arguments. Changing opinion to weak endorse, on the basis that difficult, reasonably defensible closures in close cases are entitled to a certain degree of deference.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• WeakStrong overturn to no consensus. per Sandstein. I praise Ironholds for trying to close that difficult debate on its technical merits instead of the claims of battleground and canvassing, but I'm afraid the final rationale falls short of that noble goal. When the explanations given are that "when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it" and that "if I had simply counted, I would have come up with the same result", it's not clear that the technical closure is strong enough. Arguments were not addressed that the template provides an additional important function for the Wikiproject that other deletion tags do not, and this was not addressed at all in the closing. That said, I'm more concerned that this deletion won't possibly be used to claim that the ARS project was disruptive than to recover this particular rescue mechanism, thus my weak !vote. Diego (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that Sandstein has changed to weak endorse, do you wish to modify your statement? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I started with a weak overturn per Sandstein, but our positions have diverged since then. I now concur with SL93 that ignoring the Canvassing accusations because they were poorly sourced was a big mistake in the closure process and thus merits an overturn, so that those accusations can be properly addressed. Thus the strong overturn !vote. Diego (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong endorse deletion: There were more than half again as many deletion votes as keep votes (somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-65% of votes were delete), so to say that it's "no consensus" means you'd need to throw out almost half the delete votes while keeping every single keep vote. And I really see no reason for discounting any of the deletion votes. Most of them were based on the fact that the template was serially misused. And the template has been serially misused, in fact far above and beyond the closer noted (and I think canvassing could have been proven if people so chose). And knocking Ironholds for specializing in tough XfDs is just plain wrong. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - The only thing unsurprising about this caterwauling is that ARS took almost a week to file it. The keepers never really mounted a much of a counter-argument as to what justifies their project advertising out in article-space, or why they could not just flag the XfD as Gene93k does to alert wiki-projects. The MfD found that there was a consensus...not only of numbers but also by strength of argument...of editors who either did not want the ARS flag to fly in article-space, or serve as a canvassing rallying point to organize bloc votes. The predictable "I disagree with the closer" grousing never provides a strong foundation for a DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - The opinion of the delete !voters was largely the same. There was overwhelming consensus that the template was for canvassing. The keep !voters did not establish a convincing argument discrediting that assertion. Delete !voters, and myself, gave several (I gave 6 on a closely related ANI thread) examples of this tag being used to canvass. The close matched the consensus.--v/r - TP 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The keepers have since debated flagging XfD as an option, just as Gene93k does; asking us to adopt that change would have not required an AfD based on (unproven!, per Ironholds words) canvassing accusations. The closing rationale, while difficult, is highly irregular: was canvassing a reason for the outcome or not? Diego (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I quite understand what you're saying.--v/r - TP 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Diego, on that front you might take my line in the closing that I'd be uncomfortable deleting simply based on canvassing allegations as a hint. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm reassured of your intention. But I see that as inconsistent with the reasons by which this DRV is being contested (.i.e deletion endorsed). Diego (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that if canvassing concerns were the reason why many people !voted for deletion, those should have been the reasons stated at the closing decision, but weren't (at least officially); but the official reasons are not enough to justify a strong closing stance. That's not a clean closing result, and it's likely to create more dissent in the future. Diego (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse This template has been problematic for years. I've seen it used many times to effectively canvass articles and that problem was brought up at the TfD. The argument that the template helped rescue articles ignores the fact that it has rarely been used to source articles, rather it just brings additional "I like it too!" votes to the debates. The consensus according to both the numbers and the arguments was invariably "delete". ThemFromSpace 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'm honestly confused as to what this drv is intended to accomplish. What does this "critically important" tag do that Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list doesn't? If anything, the rescue list is more effective, since there's no template on the article to alert the afd closer that canvassing has taken place. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The tag was an easy way to notify other members when the rescue list didn't exist. It also served to inform newbies that encountered an instant AfD of their first article, that there is a group of people willing to help them recover the article they created. Apparently this last function was seen as unacceptable by the TfD promoters. Diego (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The second argument here—{{rescue}}'s message to the article creator, rather than the other ARS members—is intriguing. (Though it's a bit unfair to say it was seen as unacceptable, since I don't recall it being raised during the tfd nor do I see it on an admittedly cursory reread now.) Is there some way this might be accomplished without simultaneously being a canvassing tool? Maybe a less bitey rewording of {{afd1}} and/or {{afd2}}, or a user talk template? "Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, I notice your article {{{1}}} has been nominated for deletion [[{{{2}}}|here]] because it doesn't look notable (don't be offended, that's wikijargon for 'we can't find third-party coverage', not its usual meaning); maybe you could stop by the discussion and point us at some sources?"? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If this confrontation serves to make a less bitey AfD notification for newcomers, it will have be worth something. The argument was used somewhere in the deletion discussion or the conversations linked as reference, I don't recall it exactly but I'm sure to have seen it this morning when reviewing the deletion. Can we elaborate on this idea at some other place? Diego (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Closer properly followed process and clearly showed a detailed, neutral review of the arguments presented. The closing reflected the general tone and overall weight of the comments on a read-through and this DRV has presented no failure in the close which would warrant overturning. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  Do you mean that the DRV has presented no failure, or that the failures presented would not warrant overturning? Because I'm pretty sure I've presented a couple of failures that I found in the process. Diego (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  "...presented no failure... which would warrant overturning." The which connects. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  See Killion. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Closer followed process and gave a very detailed neutral closing statement. He gave a good overview of the arguments presented and closing does reflect the discussion. Not even remotely worthy of overturning. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closed properly and neutrally. Individuals are entitled to disagree with the arguments put forward for deletion, and while I can see that this could perhaps have been closed as no consensus depending on whether or not some of those arguments were considered valid reasons backed up by evidence or simply personal opinions, I don't see a good reason to overturn. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Detailed close rationale that clearly and appropriately weighed both sides. Ironholds did not "ignore" the 34 "good-faith and policy-based keep votes", he found that the fifty-some good faith and policy based delete votes had the stronger argument. Resolute 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse The closing rationale was solid. The user who initiated this hasn't followed policy, as they didn't make any attempt to discuss this with the closing admin. No reason to overturn this. AniMate 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the closing administrator did not ignore 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes, he just felt the 53 good-faith and policy-based delete votes carried the day. Mtking ^(edits) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the 53 delete !votes were good-faith, but how were they policy-based? Diego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That it is was redundant to other templates, it was the only project that got to put it's template on the article and that it was used as a tool to canvas !votes. Mtking ^(edits) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. A case was made that it helped newbies in a way that a simple AfD wouldn't (The special ability of the ARS to deploy its un-removable template to mainspace is helpful as it helps give voice to the otherwise silent interests of countless millions of interested readers and thousands of newbies affected by deletion). That's why we're arguing that these arguments/counterarguments should have been covered by the closing stance, but weren't. As for the claims of canvassing, I will make no more comments since they were explicitly dismissed by the closing rationale. Diego (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough; so, I evaluated it at the time, but didn't want to exhaustively cover everything or I'd end up with a 10-page closing summary. My basic feeling was that this is not a valid counterargument to the claims of irrelevance; the entire point was "unremovable AfD templates already provide a mechanism for keeping people informed about deletion discussions", and so stating "yes, but we provide an unremovable notification template!" is kind of like responding to "it's used for murder" with "don't be silly, it's used for killing people". Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - AFD is !voting, and closing admin spelled out clearly which arguments were stronger. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But didn't elaborate on how they were stronger, which AFAIK is required to justify a consensus close. Diego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn: If you really think that TfD discussion developed a consensus, I'm speechless. Ironholds' supervote close may seem wise to some in its outcome, but in terms of whether the close was proper, that's not what consensus means in the real world, nor normally in wikipedia. Be careful what you wish for, folks. You may be found unnecessary and redundant yourself someday. Of course the ARS is still locating and improving articles (and canvassing people to do it! egads!) no matter what happens to this template,[1] but it would be nice to have the tool. If you endorsers won't reconsider, so be it. Btw, how the hell are so many people participating in this discussion so fast? AfD itself is dying a slow death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  I think you meant TfD in your first usage of AfD. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

corrected, thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• One would almost think this was an issue that people cared about or something. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I may have to do another hunger strike.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I joined the ARS squadron recently to save worthwhile articles that were tagged, not to go on a canvassing spree with other editors. I disagree with my joining because the negatives outweigh the positives plus the recent drama. When I participate in an AfD on an obviously non-notable topic and only trivial mentions are shown, I hate the rescue tag. It's always, "Here we go again. Should I debate or ignore the nomination?" SL93 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have argued here that a tweak to the deletion process would help alleviate the drama and reconcile the inclusionist/deletionist positions. Would you like to join the debate? (long story short, the change I propose would make it easier for inclusionists to just 'let it go'). Diego (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse The closing admin gave a serious and considered explanation in the original close, and has satisfactorily responded to all queries here. There is no suggestion that those supporting delete were canvassed or were misguided in their comments, and no one has given a policy-based reason to support a reversal of the solid consensus that was based on solid arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse- consensus does not require unanimity, and "I don't like the result" is no reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Ironholds arrived at the right conclusion after properly weighing the opinions presented, and there is no credible claim of mistake or misconduct. Therefore there is no reason to overturn. Reyk _YO! 22:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse though I don't agree with everything the closing admin said this was a fair, well-reasoned close and no convincing reason has been presented to overturn it. The Keep opinions were not ignored, on the contrary they were taken into consideration. The idea that the discussion should be closed as "no consensus" because a large number of people wanted to keep the template would mean all contentious discussions would be closed as "no consensus", something which is clearly unsatisfactory (just because lots of people participated does not mean there is not a consensus present, though it is often harder to determine what that consensus is). I don't think any admin could be motivated to close a discussion a certain way because they would get a barnstar for it. Hut 8.5 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse: Not even gonna pretend that I read the whole closing rationale, but killing this template improves Wikipedia. Enough said. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attack sucks balls, MZMcBride. Enough said.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, how in any way is that a personal attack? — Joseph Fox 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Context, my friend, if you know MZ's opinions, make it clear.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Milowent: Given that I nominated this template for deletion in 2009, it's certainly no surprise to see me here endorsing a deletion discussion that resulted in delete. My only regret is that I wasn't able to vote in the prior TFD. This template has been used as a political weapon, it has long been at odds with how nearly every other WikiProject template operates, and its death is (will be) a Good Thing. Nobody has any issue with users improving legitimate articles. People do have issues with this template being used as an inclusionist beacon, meant only to be applied to articles of marginal or questionable notability. Sadly, killing this template won't prevent future inclusionist vote-stacking and mob mentality, but at least it can be done without an obnoxious and anachronistic banner sitting at the top of the article. Good riddance. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• How in flying fuck do all these people show up within 6 hours of this DRV being opened? For godsakes, if we had 1/2 of you improving articles, we wouldn't have articles at AfD ever being tagged for rescue, all the AfD decisions would be obvious. Holy fuck, I'm disgusted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That comment is rich coming from someone with all of five mainspace edits in his last 50. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Resolute 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "All these people" probably saw this, this, or both on their watchlists. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, you apparently know nothing about me, so flaunt your ignorance if you must. I founded Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue which improved thousands of articles in 2010-11, have written well over one hundred articles, and have improved hundreds more. Most importantly, I have squashed very many ill-adivsed AfDs from ignorant folks who had no subject matter expertise whatsoever before making their nominations. I live for knowledge, not for its deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get into a dick measuring contest, I have started over 400 articles, taken and uploaded over 400 images, have 11 FAs and 40 GAs. And congratulations on getting involved in the BLP cleanup months after I did. Now that that's out of the way, I would like to point out that improving articles and dealing with a DRV over a divisive and redundant template are not mutually incompatible. But I'll forgive you for failing to notice that given how hard it must be to see so far up on your high horse. Resolute 03:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, I never said you weren't an excellent Wikipedian outside your hasty comment about my last 50 edits.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak endorse- Quite frankly I'm mystified as to how deleting this template "improved" the encyclopedia, and the vehemence of those opposed to its existence bemuses me. The claims that it was used as a means of canvassing seems rather weak considering that the AFD page itself serves as a de-facto canvassing tool for those leaning towards the delete side (at least in my eye, your mileage obviously may vary). That said, the consensus, however weakly, leaned towards the delete side, so I cannot, in good conscience, state that I think it should be overturned. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Ironholds correctly assessed the arguments in the deletion discussion, and the assumption of bad faith from the initiator of this DRV is striking. There was absolutely no discussion of the close with the closing admin before this showed up at DRV, which is a fairly strong argument for a speedy endorse of the close. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ho lawdy. Excellent close. Whether it should have been deleted is not the discussion we should be having here; the way forward is being constructively debated elsewhere. pablo 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse This nomination is so pathetic I do not believe a rationale is necessary for endorsing. Let's just say I expected this DRV, but I am pleasantly surprised it took almost a week. Yoenit (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good reason to bring a DRV. The close was well within administrative discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse and close per WP:SNOW per Spartaz and Horologium. This seems to be nothing more than a bad faith nomination. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. If Wikipedia is ever going to make progress on stuff like this, we have to accept non-no-consensus results other than 80%+ majorities. There are other means by which ARS can continue to function. Editors can watch the various topical WP:DELSORT lists for instance, or even WP:DELREV. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse That was a needful result and issue was well discussed. Nothing wrong with the close-as-delete-rationale; length was helpful. Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Ironholds's rationale is a reasonable conclusion/summary of the debate, and no substantial evidence of any glaring irregularities has been presented in this DRV. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Spartaz. Not liking a decision is no reason to bring it to DRV, especially when a clear consensus was reached in the exhaustive TfD discussion (I don't know what further discussion is possible), and when the closing admin made such a lengthy and rigorous explanation of his decision. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn The closer was too involved, being a partisan in this ideological conflict. The timing of the close is telling. The discussion started at 04:14 UTC and the close was started at 04:48 UTC, eight days later. Allowing for the SOPA outage, that's about as early as possible, while maintaining a superficial propriety. 04:48 is remarkably early in the morning, being the civil time for the closer. The closer's account had not been used for 5 days and so this was not a routine patrol but seems, instead, to have been a carefully-timed intervention to arrange a particular result, contrary to WP:GAME. Warden (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  The reason I was up at 5am, and the reason I hadn't edited for five days, was because my day job both occupies a lot of time and demands I work on PST. The reason I took this AfD was because it was complex and interesting - and if you look through my previous AfD closes, you'll see that complex and interesting discussions are the type I like to close, regardless of the subject-matter. "Allowing for the SOPA outage, that's about as early as possible, while maintaining a superficial propriety" - you know, I don't think I've ever heard "he allowed everyone to speak their bit and then closed it promptly" used as an argument for impropriety before. I closed it because I like complex discussions. I closed it early in the morning because if I'd waited, other people would've got there first...and I like complex discussions. Questions? :). Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  We have to go back months to find another close made by Ironholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical trials with surprising outcomes. That close does not seem to have any of the attributes claimed for this case and the long interval between these closes is also telling. My position stands: that this is a breach of nemo iudex in causa sua: "It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest." Warden (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  I was more thinking of stuff like this, or the Wikipetan AfDs, or the Israel/Palestine AfDs, and so on. Your position is disingenuous; nemo iudex is a warning against having the appearance of bias in justice. You are not worried about the appearance of bias - you are directly accusing me of getting involved here to push a point of view, and of specifically taking this AfD in order to do so. At least have the balls to say so directly. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ironholds is well-known to have utterly broken sleep patterns. Him closing a deletion debate at 04:14 UTC is... not at all out of the ordinary. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  It is worth noting that my specific problem with this line of argument is not the assumption of bad faith, or even the disingenuous cowardice that accompanies it; it's that if I'm biased for having an opinion on deletion, every. single. administrator. who has ever deleted or kept anything can be dismissed from handling this AfD for the same reason. In effect, the only person trying to game the system here is you. In the AfD, I dismissed the accusations of canvassing. When the DRV was brought, I engaged with the Article Rescue Squadron to ensure that everyone was okay in me telling AfD participants that it was going on; notifications I passed around in the interests of fairness and transparency, notifications I passed around despite the fact that consensus here was overwhelmingly moving to "endorse" and deliberately bringing more people into the discussion would potentially undermine my position. These are not the actions of someone attempting to ensure a slam-dunk, nor the actions of someone displaying bias. Indeed, the only reason you're here to make your rather craven allegations is because I notified you that this was going on. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I have no problem with any allegation that can be substantiated. But to accuse me of bad faith simply on the basis of "he was up at funny hours and a bit busy the week beforehand" is ludicrous to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  @Warden - That is some very weak evidence to be throwing WP:GAME accusations around. "Ohh well he was awake at a wierd hour and he closed it at the exact right time". I think we need more uninvolved admins patroling this conversation.--v/r - TP 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  No matter how much Colonel Warden believes himself engaged in an ideological struggle, there is no basis for those accusations, whether in Latin or not. Beware the argumentum ad hominem (and the argumentum de stercore tauri). pablo 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  This is ridiculous. Looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13, we can see that this was closed over two hours after every other debate at that page, so harping about the timing is disingenuous. Frankly everything Colonel Warden has written here reeks of bad faith. If he has evidence that Ironholds was involved he should present it. AniMate 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  My objection was not simply based upon the timing of the close - the eagerness with which the closer jumped on this discussion, not having closed a deletion discussion for 3 months. The principal objection was that the closer was not impartial. One has to be remarkably blind to the arguments of one side to take a 53:34 split and represent it as a consensus. This makes a mockery of the word and so makes these proceedings a travesty. As for Ironholds' repeated accusations of cowardice; this just seems to be a crude insult - the sort of abuse which one would expect in such a kangaroo court. Warden (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Closer gave a detailed rationale which showed that he had thoroughly reviewed the arguments on both sides. In the end, he went with the side that had more !votes and (in his opinion) had a stronger policy-based argument. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment If any keep !votes in an xFD means the result must be "no consensus," and if "no consensus" means the content is always kept, the consequences are simply unworkable. It would abolish the entire deletion process — and while some here might consider that their utopian ideal, it isn't an option that, well, has a consensus behind it. That's the tyranny of the minority, and while you might like it when the result is what you want, it certainly isn't the way to motivate a large number of volunteers to stick around. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: I was already aware of this through stalking various pages when I got a direct canvas attempt to come and weigh in. After looking at this plus some of the meta discussions around the deletion (including the invective here and on ARS's page) I see a case of "IDONTLIKEIT" being the primary motivation. This was one of the longest *fD closure discussions I've read in a very long time. IMO ARS is always going to be tainted with the stigma of being a minimal keeping group instead of a collection of editors that actually uses the maintanance templates to improve the article. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• wtf? "The admin received a barnstar for the deletion." and? Bulwersator (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse but with strong concern over the rationales given by the !voters A very large number of the !votes were based on assertions about the "ARS". The "barnstar" issue clearly reflects this. I do not regard assertions about those using a template to be "policy based" arguments, but more similar to the arguments given in the ooast at deletion discussions concerning the ARS itself. I am not, nor have I been, a member of that project. I am concerned, however, that the template deletion discussion was based far more on opinions about the ARS than about any actual Wikipedia policies concerning templates. Collect (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse, consensus was absolutely clear; DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion:I did not participate in the discussion or in the vote and I believe Ironholds used his discretion to close the vote after going through the discussion, similar is the case with tough blocks and WP:RFA we have WP:AGF to Admins and crats as it is with users with it comes within the area of discretion.Ironholds is very long standing user and knows the project very well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse closure — I think that the term "!vote" is used so frequently that some people forget just what, exactly, it means: consensus-building debates on wikipedia are not votes, even though some of of the smallest and largest of them can appear to be. Furthermore, on an *fd that alleges a template being used for WP:CANVASSing, it becomes especially important that the closing admin not simply count responses but actually read them word for word. Ironholds's closure reflects that he did exactly that, and the sentiment appears to be echoed by the vast majority of Wikipedia: just because a person can rally a bunch of people to a common area does not mean they automatically get the outcome they want. Rather, it reflects the notion that what matters the most are the arguments presented in the discussion and how those arguments relate to or reflect our policies and guidelines. On a personal note, it's my opinion that unlike this DRV's nominator, I believe that anyone willing to write that extensive of a closure freakin' deserves a barnstar—pretty much regardless of the outcome. --slakr^\ talk / 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I haven't seen anything here to sway me. In fact, DRV nomination rationale and some opposes seem particularly weak. The fact that another editor chose to give him a barnstar -- that most cherished of treasures -- after deletion could not, in my view, be more trivial. Reading intention into the time of morning Ironholds chooses to work, is another doozy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - I !voted keep in that exhaustive discussion. While I would have closed that discussion as "no consensus", given the carefully reasoned closing statement, I cannot say that it is unreasonable for the closer to conclude that the 5:3 delete/keep ratio of policy-compliant !votes did reach rough consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing statement was measured and coherent. Closer took into account all points of view. Close should stand. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep deleted no consensus my ass, did you actually read the deletion discussion. There sure as hell was a consensus. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• EndorseI agree that there are no convincing arguments that there was anything wrong with the decision. The bad faith comments about barnstars and being awake at an apparently suspicious time are pathetic. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn Whilst I respect User:Ironholds immensely as one of the few admins prepared to make difficult decisions, I believe he made the wrong call in this case. Similarly whilst I can understand the frustration of the OP, the opening comments have not helped. The argument for those wishing to delete this template, is that it was being used by editors to canvas keep votes in AfD. Well if editors are abusing a template in that manner, then sanction the editors but do not delete the template. To Paraphrase, Templates don't rescue articles, editors do. It is a useful function to have a mechanism for retaining relevant content that would be otherwise deleted and to have a team of editors prepared to do so. Deleting its template is emasculating the ARS. For those arguing that there was a lot of delete votes, consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument and the bitterness I saw in that discussion was not good. It should have been closed as "No Consensus". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have any idea how almost impossible it is to sanction experienced long term editors even if they do something wrong? That would be trying to sanction almost all of the main ARS members. SL93 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • So, because it may be problematic to isolate and punish a couple of mischievous editors, it's better to disrupt the core tools of a whole working Wikiproject? I earnestly hope that this closure doesn't create that precedent. Diego (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It is not a core tool in the state that it was before deletion. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • It was the tool that was in active use by people of the project to coordinate efforts. Diego (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
          • With disastrous results. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
            • So you do endorse TfDs as a mechanism to stop active Wikiprojects? Diego (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Exactly, but only if they are disruptive. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Oh, you mean, the very thing for which the closing decision said there was no evidence? ;-) If so, your arguments do not seem to apply to this situation. Diego (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • I'm obviously not the only person with this opinion which you should know. Stop trying to act like a smart ass. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • If it's changed to no consensus, it can be renominated some other time and get deleted again which seems likely. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • SL93, my last remark was intended as tongue-in-cheek. My point was that the closing stance has officially nothing to do with canvassing, and yet everybody is praising Ironholds' well-balanced and neutral decision, even when we all know that the claim of canvassing behavior is the main reason why so many people argued against the tag. Diego (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The big problem with this template is that it had the effect of canvassing ARS members even if that wasn't the tagger's intention. The template itself and its instructions exacerbated this: the instructions said not to subst it, so tagged articles could be found by looking at its transclusions; and even were it substed, it had links to File:Gnome-help-browser.svg and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, which shouldn't otherwise appear in articlespace (er, could someone move Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage/August 2009? thanks.), so it could have been found by their WhatLinksHere, too. I understand it also categorized articles at one point. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Diego, this is why it is disruptive. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse DRV is not XfD 2.0 no matter how much you want it to be. I can not find a reason why Ironholds' close did not follow procedure or that any other consensus can be read from the discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. The discussion was proper, the close was neutral. Good call. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Ironholds reasoning for reaching the decision seem clearly explained, and entirely consistent with the balance of arguments. Regarding 'consensus', I'd point out that the criteria can only be assessed in terms of 'consensus amongst those giving policy-based arguments' - and several of the keep arguments looked less-than-convincing when looked at in that light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I was one of the delete !voters who mentioned canvassing. The closer discounted those arguments, but I think he should not have. He asked for evidence of a specific incident of canvassing, but that's not what I meant. I meant that (nearly) any use of this template would constitute canvassing a priori; this is a logical statement, not a factual one. I am well aware that we usually try not to delete things because someone is misusing them; I claim that this template is always misuse, so that rule doesn't apply. The point is, the closer did not consider this argument, and I think it bolsters the other reasons for deletion. However, I am reluctant to endorse, both because I disagree with the closer about the canvassing and because the outcome of this DRV is obvious at this point. --NYKevin @794, i.e. 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - The decision was well reasoned and a neutral third party could reasonably reach the same conclusion. Therefore the close is good. I'll note that, had I been closing this thread, most of the statements here, the "the decision was right because I agreed with it" and "the template was evil" statements, really wouldn't carry much weight. Neither would either of the overturns though, for much the same reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse This is ridiculous. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This DRV nomination is based on incorrect criteria. "There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag." Per Ironholds extensive explanation, there was. "The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes." Per Ironholds explanation: no, he didn't. "The admin's looong comment said very little in many words." Pure personal opinion. "The admin received a barnstar for the deletion." Utterly irrelevent to the deletion. Thus, endorse from a procedural standpoint if nothing else. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV is not TfD v2. Prodego ^talk 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse and snowball - I participated in the AFD, I don't agree with all of Ironholds' conclusions (on the matter of canvassing, for instance) but his rationale was well explained and a valid interpretation of consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• For what little it's worth after this horrendous pile-on, I think that was a poor close of a poor discussion. The discussion was full of totally crap reasoning that should have been disregarded. "It is just being used for canvassing purposes" is a user conduct issue and we don't use the XFD process to resolve user conduct issues. "Why does one wiki-project get to put its tag in article space?" is a reason to put the tag in the talk space instead, it isn't a reason to delete it. The fact is that the reason this template got deleted is because users don't like the ARS. Welcome to the ugly side of wikipolitics. Let's not pretend it was a well-reasoned close of a well-reasoned discussion. And yes, let's close it early. This whole episode has been a disgrace to the encyclopaedia and it needs burying and walking away from.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You can assume bad faith of the "winning" side in any contentious dispute with that tacky "welcome to wikipolitics" routine. It's a common complaint when someone's "side" didn't get its way. Sometimes it's justified; mostly it's not. But here it's about as convincing as Donald Trump's toupee (and just as tacky). You try to spin it as all the critics and opponents coming out in force to gang up on the poor defenseless ARS, but since there was so much participation from so many people not associated with either side of that dispute your claim is pretty hollow. You also say this disussion was about using XfD as a dispute resolution tool; that it would be better to examine the conduct of the editors misusing the template than to delete it. That would be fine, but you've overlooked an important part of the consensus at the TfD, namely that the template had no other legitimate purpose. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Reyk, the ARS is not "my side" and in fact I've never been a member. I doubt if most of them would see me as someone sympathetic to their aims. I don't have a conflict of interest here, I'm an outsider calling it like I see it.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, but plenty of other uninvolved outsiders have reached the opposite conclusion to you so this is clearly not a politically motivated witch hunt as you are claiming. Reyk _YO! 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The fact that lots of people disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. It does probably mean this debate will be closed as "endorse deletion", because Wikipedia's essentially democratic in its approach to value judgments. What it does not mean is that I'm wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean this wasn't a politically motivated witch hunt.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I like some ideals of the ARS, but what I do not like is the tag bringing a bunch of members voting keep with no evidence of notability. Why sanction members when it's so simple to keep this deleted and walk away? Wikipolitics shouldn't be hard and annoying when a simple deletion can get the same result. Wikipedia can thrive without that template. ARS is a completely different Wikiproject than others because it is obviously bias. If ARS can stay, I want an ADS (Article Deletion Squadron) to balance it out. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It's called WP:ADELS. :-)—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • And they have a tag! (smile!) Diego (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • AfD is not just a deletionist playground. What I want is a group of people that can put a tag on an article that says "This article sucks. Help delete it" or something like that. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • There's one of those, too. Why do you think it may be filed under "humour"? Diego (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
            • My point is, there is only something that is all about keeping articles and is bias. Personally, ARS should be a humor page also with how it's been operating. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the thorough, clear, well explained closing statement in the original debate. Begoon ^talk 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Pile-on endorse This discussion is not about the template but the TFD. The consensus was clear and Ironholds stepped into what he knew was going to be a controversial decision no matter which way it went and did a damn fine job of evaluating and summarizing the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'Overturn to no consensus. What seems obvious to me is that on both the underlying issue with the ARS, and the template, there is no consensus. I wish there were consensus, both to endorse the project, and also to endorse the template, but I'm not going to pretend there is for either. But there is no consensus the other way, either, at least if consensus refers to consensus of policy based opinions, not the sort of unthinking voting the template is incorrectly said to encourage, but is often prevalent on both sides, before the templates was invented, while it has been here, still persists now it is not here, and will undoubtedly continue. Too many of the arguments to delete were not policy based. Many of the votes for delete were for those who want to increase the already existing bias towards deletion by making it harder to attract people to rescue articles, and all such votes were in blatant contradiction to deletion policy that deletion is the last resort. Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept, and to consider that more significant than the otherwise improper deletion of many articles is a misjudgment, based on balancing the facts without regard to the importance of preserving fixable articles that is required by policy. Personally, I'd have worked on devising a somewhat different notice not subject to the same objections rather than continue the debate here, because it does not seem likely that the existing prejudices will be erased based on anything said here. I want to distance myself from the view that the closer showed obviously bias: he was just in error: rather than try to disentangle policy from prejudice, he offered his own view of the situation. He did an analysis which would have been an appropriate !vote, but it was not a close based on the policy based arguments in the discussion. when the discussion leads to cno clear consensus on policy grounds, the closer does not get to decide which of the policy based arguments are correct--if there is no consensus about that in the discussion, the close must be non-consensus. Rather he closed on his own analysis that the lack of essential functionality was outweighed by the amount of dissension. I consider that a respectable though incorrect view, even if it did amount to some extent to IAR, but it was not the consensus, though he did point to one good supporting opinion. However, I certainly distance myself from the view that it is necessarily wrong to close only 2 hours after the deadline, or that 600 GMT is an unreasonable time for people in the US to work on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'm based in the US? News to me...Ironholds (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Would you be opposed to the Wikipedia:Integrity Rescue Squad who uses the {{toilet}} tag to ensure Wikipedia's integrity is ensured by deleting terrible articles? Would such {{toilet}} tag be canvassing? WP:CANVASS concerns are legitimate policy based concerns and consensus was largely supporting that.--v/r - TP 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  " Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept" -- No. I think Ironholds misinterpreted my !vote. What I meant was that any use of the template is canvassing by definition. That's an entirely different argument from what you're presenting, and IMHO it's certainly a valid reason for deletion. --NYKevin @873, i.e. 19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn (no consensus)Overturn (delete/don't use for now, continue at RfC) The close was the best outcome, with no other viable options. Where a close needs that much detail, it is too much analysis, and thus a supervote. Also, the TfD aounted to a policy discussion, which should not be executed via deletion. Agreed that there was consensus that there was a problem with the template or its use. Consistent with "and if anyone can point to some (neutral) functionality that should be integrated into other AfD templates, I'm happy to undelete for the purpose of retrieving that", I think this needs to go to an RFC, with the template not to be used in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  So you want to overturn because the amount of detail in my closing made it a supervote - because, who the hell takes some time to close a 90-person debate? - even though you have read all the detail in my "supervote" and agree that the decision made was the right onw, and you think that this should go to RfC....because I said I was willing to undelete if there was some template syntax in it that people wanted to use elsewhere. Not to be blunt, but what?!. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Getting a detailed close is a good thing. Reading it shows that the closer was aware that the issue would be controversial (many discussions involving the ARS are controversial), and the closer took the trouble to explain their policy-based deliberations. Please quote the text in the close that you consider amounted to a supervote, or strike that suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Apologies for a poorly explained (or defined) position. The “supervote” thing is a stretch of the normal meaning. It is not that Ironholds introduced new arguments, but that his rationale, his analysis of the discussion, I find non-obvious. On review, I retract the “supervote” thing. It was a good close of rough consensus. And I thank Ironholds for the explanation. Much is well done, but this is complicated, and there angles to it that don’t seem quite right.

On one hand, Ironholds is right, his rationale seems sound (though complex, to me), he has my confidence in distilling a rough consensus, and there is a clear case that the use of the template was disputed.

On the other, what I don’t like, is that this XfD amounts to prescriptive policy decision, and policy decisions are not decided by rough consensus. Where Ironholds writes “when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it. That is precisely what consensus says I should do”, I must disagree. The resolution of strife-causing behaviour should not be achieved through deletion, the application of an administrator technical privilege.

The question remaining is whether the rough consensus should stand as a precedent-forming prescriptive policy decision. Are new versions of the template going to be unilaterally deleted under G4? I think it is this that push me to type “overturn”. I hope the TfD will not lead to admins using a G4 stick to beat future ARS initiatives, and assert here that no WP:INVOLVED admin should consider doing so. (Here, WP:INVOLVED admins would include all who participated in the debate, but would not include Ironholds).

I think this should go to RFC, because this was fundamentally a behavioural issue that will probably recur by some other means. There are many ways to organise information on AfD nominations on articles that could be rescued by improvement. This method of resolution of the problem may just force ARS members to become creative, or to use off-site methods. I would like to see and RfC serve to help the ARS members productively, and openly, move forward. In the interest of facilitating forward discussion. I’d like to see the deleted template archived for reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overturnto no consensus . There was clearly no consensus to delete. The closing administrator mentions the past nominations, which are not relevant in any way. A lot of things get nominated multiple times. The other ANI discussion should've been kept open [2], instead of moving it to a deletion discussion. The closing administrator also mentions the "militiarism" thing. Because something has the word "squadron" in its name, doesn't make it militarist. There is no actual proof of any wrong doing by the ARS. No one shows up to vote "Keep" on every article tagged. You never get more than a handful of people showing up at all because of the tag. Dream Focus 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Everything past "no consensus to delete" is, by your standard, not relevant in any way :P. I mentioned past nominations because I was providing context. I mentioned the militarism thing because the editors who commented mentioned militarism. You seem to be slightly misunderstanding the purpose of DRV; it is not to hash over old arguments again. If you want to post a big long schpiel explaining why everyone who disagreed with you is wrong, that's fine, but not here. You can use your userpage for that. You know, more. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Even a few people from that tag can move a nomination in a disruptive way. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • SL93, to you too, DRV is not for rehashing old arguments. Given that I specifically threw out the canvassing claim in my close, there's little point going on about it. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't believe that there is little point in going on about it when I'm not the only person who voiced that concern. It has been a bigger issue since before the nomination till now so it is not an old argument. You leaving that out that in your closure does not stop the claim from still being open. Anyway, if it is changed to no consensus, I would like to renominate it to settle this. It might not be deleted the second time, but it should have a result. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • You're right, it doesn't mean the claim isn't open, but what it does mean is the claim shouldn't be discussed here. This is deletion review, not a bloody debating hall. The only ground for bringing up something I dismissed in the AfD is "we should overturn because he dismissed it", which you are, of course, welcome to do. I somehow doubt that overturning the decision is your rationale for being here, though. Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • If it's not a bloody debating hall, you are a hypocrite. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Because I have spent large amounts of time discussing irrelevancies? :P. Look, this is Deletion Review. The purpose of this page is to discuss whether or not a decision in a deletion discussion was the correct one. If you are spending lots of time discussing things not because it pertains to the appropriateness of the decision, but simply because you want to continue debating a point, you are Doing It Wrong. You see all those "endorse" comments above telling the disgruntled keep voters "DRV is not AfD version 2"? Well, that comment applies to enthusiastic delete voters just as much. Ironholds (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
              • It all does relate to the appropriateness of the decision. My comments all go back to the fact that you didn't add anything about canvassing which was frequently brought up. So it all shows that it was not a correct decision. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and renominate: I consider the closing comments a big mistake because it left out important issues that were brought up. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, that's right; "renominate, he came to the right decision for the wrong reason". You know, the trick in an argument is not to try and blind the opposition with 110% proof stupid. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, using the wrong reason to close a TfD debate is a procedural shortcoming and thus a very strong argument to overturn it at the DRV. If there's a strong consensus on something among the people of opposing views is that the major discussion subject is the presumed canvassing. SL93 and me are both in agreement that this is enough reason to revert the deletion. If that means nominating it again, at least it will mean that the canvassing allegations will be addressed in depth and actual supporting evidence will be requested to analyze how serious it was. Diego (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly. This needs closure. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're going on about, but my reasoning is that it was not a fair representation of all views. You know, this is my view and you're trying to debate it. Hypocrite. When did I say that it was the right decision? SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  I shall sit over here in the corner, laughing uncontrollably. Have fun :). Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Laughing uncontrollably because you're a dumb incompetent admin? Go ahead. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  You do know an admin doesn't have to list every possible reason right? And cool it with the attacks. Your statement is clearly ridiculous when this is possibly one of the best rationals ever written right? Delete rationals are rarely longer than 2 or 3 sentences. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ironholds didn't list the main issue. It was brought to ANI because of canvassing which resulted in the nomination and then resulted in this DRV. Long rationales don't automatically equal one of the best rationales. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  I called Ironholds a hypocrite because he said that DRV is not a bloody debating hall when he is constantly trying to debate. I feel I have the right to call him a dumb incompetent admin when he calls my overturn reasoning stupid and says that it is funny. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Must say, I think it's pretty funny, too! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) You shouldn't call anyone that. Furthermore, what does the fact that it was deleted, with another big reason for deletion not even being mentioned, say about the template in question? That it really needed to be deleted. And, therefore that DRVing it was inappropriate, and that the deletion should be endorsed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  How is it funny? SL93 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Close on the merits. FFS on the rest. The comments here railing against IronHolds and his impure ideology, his sinister timing, and his clearly biased sense of the debate, well - quite frankly I'm embarassed I ever spoke up in favor of keeping the template. If this sort of shenanigans and anger is what comes out of the ARS, then we maybe should consider the place of the ARS on the project. And I know that's a flawed argument, and it's not at all what this debate (or the TFD) is about. But it's hard to say there isn't a problem when you see debates like this one. And this right here is why so many had a problem with the template - and the ARS. Many are just tired of the shenanigans, even if it's only a few editors. Hell, the TFD nom was just to discuss the problem, and ended up backfiring spectacularly. That should give any editor pause, and yet here we are. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  I know I said I wouldn't poke my head in, but... I don't think the problem is with the ARS. My opinion, standing here? We've got people on both sides of the aisle who are clearly angry and convinced everyone else is All Out To Get Them. The fact that some of those people are in a club with a lot of other people who aren't angry and paranoid simply acts as fuel for the paranoia of the people on the other side of the ideological divide, and their actions then spur the paranoia of those angry people in the ARS. The ARS itself is not the problem; some of the people in it and some of the people who object to it are. And last time I checked, we didn't punish the whole for the actions of a few, any more than we would block everyone who has ever !voted "delete" on the grounds that some of those guys are fuelling the flames as well.

  What we have here is, to use a metaphor, a war. Two countries, both of which have angry people with guns, fighting each other. The solution to such a problem is not to just nuke one of the countries - the end result of that is that the other nation's angry people feel justified, a lot of civilians get caught in the crossfire and, most crucially, one big chunk of angry people still have guns. It's not a very clearly thought-out metaphor, but then, to be honest, this isn't a particularly clearly thought-out post. What I'm trying to say is that we clearly have a situation where people feel very impassioned about their beliefs. The solution is not to punish anyone who occasionally agrees with the impassioned people. We should be looking to heal this rift, and such an action would only make it deeper. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  I largely agree with you, but it's easy to get frustrated when good points are lost under piles of rhetoric. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• In response to Gingsengbomb's comment which he removed: Surely, surely you can't be serious. This has got to be a joke. If it's not, this is at least something I've never seen before. Someone voting to overturn at a DRV even though they agreed with the outcome. That...is a first. - A relist with a proper closing rationale will help this drama. Sorry that I want something more lasting where a possible agreement can arise. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  SL93, your idea of "something more lasting" (correct me if I'm misrepresenting your views) seems to be a decision that says "the ARS is a big pool of canvassers who gang up to alter consensus". Ignoring my decision to ignore that - which I stand by - how could making such a decision ever foster agreement rather than further divide the community? Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  It can be found that the template has negative effects, but if it is kept in another nomination, it is possible for a discussion, RFC, the ARS talk page, or whatever to reach a solid conclusion. I don't think that most of them are intentional canvassers, but it does get the result of canvassing. The members of the Article Rescue Squadron pretty much have the same views and that tag brings people with the same views together in nominations the way that it is set up now. There should be some way that the ARS can help with a tag or without a tag. I stated earlier that I was against individual members receiving sanctions. That won't work with unintentional canvassing so the ARS needs some sort of overhaul. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  That's fair enough, but DRV or TfD are not the places to enact community overhauls; as you say, that's what talkpage discussions or RfCs are for. Deletion venues are simply not designed as a place to reach binding consensus on anything but the existence of articles (or lack thereof). Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, the only outcomes from a TFD are: The Template is Deleted OR The Template is not Deleted. There are no outcomes with broader ramifications possible. Wrong venue. I definitely agree with your overall point, don't get me wrong, and I share your interest in any kind of process that gets the ARS to a place more fully in line with its charter. I've actually been idly observing some of the ARS overhaul conversations that have popped up in light of the Rescue tag's deletion -- and I mention that to point out that the deletion, even without a rationale focused on canvassing problems, appears to be bringing a lot of attention to "fixing" the ARS' problems, whatever they may be...so I think you've gotten what you want out of this. Another TFD discussion will just throw gasoline on a fire that's basically burnt itself out. Anyway, sorry for the snideness earlier, I didn't like your "dumb incompetent" talk and I hate this DRV :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)