Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:09, 10 May 2009 editRadiopathy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,609 edits →Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussion by editors like other wikiprojects.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:00, 1 January 2025 edit undoCullen328 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,758 edits →÷the truth about Misplaced Pages =: DenyTag: Manual revert
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Article Rescue ~~WikiProject~~}}		{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Tabbed header\|This=8}}
			<br>
	:<big>Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow ].</big>
			<div class="center">{{resize\|1.3em\|'''Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron.'''}}</div>
	{{FAQ}}
			<div class="center">{{resize\|1.1em\|'''If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see ] and ].'''}}</div>
	{\| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small\|}}}\|yes\|small\|standard}}-talk"
			{{talk header}}
	\|-
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=yes\|quickedit=no}}
	\|align="center"\|]
			{{Press
	\|''This page has been ]. The mention{{#if: {{{title2\|}}}\|s are\|  is}} in:''
			\| collapsed = yes
	* {{cite news
			\| author=James Gleick \| date=8 August 2008 \| url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html?mod=psp \| title=Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists
	\| author=James Gleick
			\| author2=Nicholson Baker \| date2=20 March 2008 \| url2=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 \| title2=The Charms of Misplaced Pages
	\| date={{#if:{{{monthday\|}}}\|{{{monthday}}} {{{1\|2007}}}\|8 August 2008}}
			\| author3=Jennifer Schuessler \| date3=8 March 2008 \| url3=http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/gone-to-deletopedia/ \| title3=Gone to Deletopedia
	\| url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html?mod=psp
			\| author4=Adversus Misplaced Pages \| date4=17 September 2008 \| url4=http://www.pc-actual.com/actualidad/noticia/2008/09/17/Adversus-Misplaced Pages \| title4=Adversus Misplaced Pages
	\| title={{{articlename\|Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists}}}
			\| author5=John Broughton \| url5=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h37N0BvkVSUC \| title5=Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles \| date5=2008
	\| publisher=Wall Street Journal
	}}		}}
	* {{~~cite~~ ~~news~~		{{Old XfD multi
			\|result1='''Nomination withdrawn'''\|date1=19 September 2007\|link1={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron}}
	\| author=Nicholson Baker
			\|result2='''Speedy Keep'''\|date2=23 September 2007\|link2={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (2nd nomination)}}
	\| date={{#if:{{{monthday\|}}}\|{{{monthday}}} {{{1\|2007}}}\|20 March 2008}}
			\|result3='''Speedy Keep'''\|date3=12 July 2008\|link3={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3rd nomination)}}
	\| url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
			\|result4='''Keep'''\|date4=18 May 2009\|link4={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)}}
	\| title={{{articlename\|The Charms of Misplaced Pages}}}
			\|result5='''Speedy Keep'''\|date5=10 February 2012\|link5={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list}}
	\| publisher=New York Review of Books
			\|result6='''No Consensus'''\|date6=8 December 2012\|link6={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)}}
			\|result7='''Snow Keep'''\|date7=23 June 2019\|link7={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}
			\|result8='''Keep'''\|date8=19 November 2019\|link8={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (2nd nomination)}}
			\|result9='''Nomination withdrawn'''\|date9=25 Oct 2021\|link9={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (5th nomination)}}
			\|result10='''Snow Opposed'''\|date10=18 May 2022\|link10={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_173#AfD_alerts}}
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	]
			{{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
	\|}
	{{cent\|width=200px}}
	{{multidel
	\|list=
	* '''Nomination withdrawn''', 19 September 2007, ]
	* '''Speedy Keep''', 23 September 2007, ]
	*'''Speedy Keep''', 12 July 2008, ]
	\|small=yes
	}}		}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{archivebox\|auto=yes \|<inputbox>
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	bgcolor=
			\|maxarchivesize = 95K
	type=fulltext
			\|counter = 61
	prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
	break=yes
			\|minthreadstoarchive=2
	width=20
			\|algo = old(91d)
	searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive %(counter)d
	</inputbox>}}
			}}

			{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-03-05/WikiProject report\|writer=]\|\|day=5\|month=March\|year=2014}}
	__TOC__
	<!-- Please Note: Articles tagged for rescue are automatically added to this list.-->		<!-- Please Note: Articles tagged for rescue are automatically added to this list.-->__TOC__
	{{Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles}}

	==Recognition of efforts==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->
	===Barnstars project===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. ] 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know ] hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. ] (]) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. ] 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, ] just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. ] 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.

	For example:
	:]

	I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. ] (]) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. ] (]) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

	::I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. ] 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: ]. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.
	::::RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.
	::::I already checked all of the AfDs involving ], which is on ]. But would like more specific success stories
	::::] (]) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===New idea to recognize efforts===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	Please see and help with ], which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because
	:#Its about the articles, not the editors
	:#Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors ] to save an article, not just one editor. ] (]) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). ] ] 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):
	:::*From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
	:::*And that's another thing: It just doesn't ''feel'' right. I mean, Halls of Fame have ''members''. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. ]]] 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. ] 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}


	===Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	With ] yesterday being promoted to ], and counting ], ], ] and ], I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to ]-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I have been told that some ] purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved ] at ]. I was unsuccessful with ] on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to ] status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
	:I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - ] (]) (]) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. ] (]) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::I created a new category ] and template ] for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. ] (]) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::And I have removed it again from ], since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The ] article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. ] (]) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
	*Also, ], which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. ] (]) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. ] (]) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Example===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	] was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its ] for how this evolved (if examples are needed). ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===Recognition of embattled users===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: ] which can be placed on new editors talk pages:

	<nowiki>==Welcome==</nowiki>
	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| Hello, '''Article Rescue Squadron''', and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are ''']''' who feel that ] here is important and valuable, especially me.

	;Need help?
	If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{tl\|helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit ''' <span class="plainlinks"></span>''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!

	If you have '''any questions''' at all, please <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Again, welcome! ] (]) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
	\|}

	<nowiki>{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}</nowiki>

	The template signs your name for you. It is part of:

	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| message ] (]) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
	\|}


	<nowiki>{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar\|message ~~~~}}</nowiki>

	] (]) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Medals===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on ], the coding is here:
	:<pre>{{ARS\|ArticleTitle}}</pre>
	You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. ] (]) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
	:(Inspired by ] which is hanging above his ]). ] (]) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	==ARS tools and possible tools discussion==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->
	===AFD summaries===
	{{hat\|A dust-covered AfD tool that categorized open AfDs by a number of parameters; very useful for "ARS Search and rescue" possibilities}}
	Any chance of someone taking over ] to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- ] ] 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! ] 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	==== Candidates for Speed Deletion ====
	{{hat\|CSD and rescue tag discussion; possible food for thought for "search and rescue" at CSD and Prods}}
	I have been watching the ] portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under ] but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no ''assertion'' of notability, the article goes pfft. If there is an ''assertion'' of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is ''notable'' is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. ] (]) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter. Regards ''']]''' 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the <nowiki>{{rescue}}</nowiki> is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on ], whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	==== Where do I go to make an alert? ====
	{{hat\|ARS and Prods.}}
	I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on ], declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about ]. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.

	Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.

	] (]) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	* 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per ]. ] (]) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	*I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. ] 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	::In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. ] (]) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (]). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. ] (]) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an '''assertion''' of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #cc3300; padding: 3px">]</span><sub><span style="background: #ffffcc; color: #cc3300;">].</span></sub> 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{tl\|hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. ] (]) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see ]). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged ''for the wrong reason''. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. ] (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). ] (]) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. ''']''' (]) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	==={{tl\|findsourcesnotice}}===
	Hi ARS. I created {{tl\|findsourcesnotice}} as a way editors can quickly tag non-ARS talk pages to suggest where those interested in the article may find reilable source material for the article. -- ] ] 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	===Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page===
	{{hat\|{{tl\|ARS/Tagged}}}}
	] had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

	{{ARS/Tagged}}

	Coding:
	<nowiki>{{ARS/Tagged}}</nowiki>

	This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. ] (]) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
	:This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	==Did you know...==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->...that there are ] for newly-expanded articles which are available at ]? I just tried this for the first time on ] that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some ] for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good ] and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. ] (]) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

	==ARS project development==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->
	===Wikiads===
	See: ]. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for ]? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.] (]) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	===Newsletter===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation.}}
	Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: ]. There are several examples:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]

	...and several bots: ]. ] (]) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
	:I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. ] 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Mottos===
	{{hat\|Motto ideas, collapsing thread to be mined for when Wikiad effort ensues. }}
	Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project?
	{{Cquote\|...Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy...\|200\|200\|], ]}}
	] (]) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

	: and equate some editors with terrorists? ] 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
	:: If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Misplaced Pages editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) ] (]) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. ] (]) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

	:* ]. ] 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

	::I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? ] (]) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

	::: To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;
	{{Cquote\|<del>To Divide and Conquer</del>}}
	::: ] 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::Knock it off. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Stricken. ] 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
	Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:

	{{Cquote\|Don't point a finger, lend a hand\|unknown}}

	It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. ] (]) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. <small>(Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)</small>

	:Simple and direct are both good. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	* Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. ] (]) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) {{quote\|''To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.''\|Winston S. Churchill}}

	::I like that one. ] (]) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again:
	{{Cquote\|Some things can be fixed}}
	] 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
	:I '''love''' TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. ] (]) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	::Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. ] (]) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. ] (]) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
	You know what I've been considering to be our motto?
	{{Cquote\|Don't count on us.}}
	The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Lol! Luv it. ] 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
	::Word, I like this one. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

	* '''Comment''': We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. ] 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
	::For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. ] 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. ''']''' '']'' 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

	{{Cquote\|We'd rather fix the damn pipes than complain about having wet feet}}
	{{hab}}

	==]==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation. This is excellent material on policies on preserving content.}}
	This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at ]. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "''endeavour to preserve information''" is in harmony with our mission. ] (]) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	:thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see ]:
	::#] '''Policy''' Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
	::#] '''Guideline''' states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
	::#] '''Policy''' Decorum and politeness. Misplaced Pages urges any contributor to read the ''Misplaced Pages:Deletion'' policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
	::#] ] '''Essay''' Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
	::#] ] '''Essay''' In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
	::#] ] Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously ], consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a ], instead of bringing the article to AfD. '''If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.'''
	::#] "consider adding a tag such as {{tl\|cleanup}}, {{tl\|disputed}} or {{tl\|expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."
	:] (]) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	::Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that ] comes as a surprise to them is telling. ] (]) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. ] (]) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{tl\|rescue}} template ==

	The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{tl\|rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves.

	I think it would be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes ''before'' launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? ] 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

	* A Nobody had a similar ] that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also ] seems a good resource. ] 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
	**And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. ''']''' '']'' 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
	***Ikip is around now. I agree that specific help pages dealing with the deletion process would be nice. I think a large part of it, though, is that there is no punishment for overly aggressive people who nominate weak pages left and right, even article stubs that were ]. It's frustrating dealing with such aggressive deletionists; if they fail consensus on AfD, they don't actually lose anything and will simply try again later. Deletionism is a widely accepted philosophy, so they can't be accused of acting in bad faith either. -<span style="font:bold 10px Verdana;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I already wrote ] which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.
	::::I also regularly post messages to new editors with promosing articles, for example: ]
	::::I remember Ben said that we need some way to review all of the articles which are put up for deletion. That is what I try to do everyday. I would like to create a ] which takes all of the articles on ] and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. ] (]) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	I'd personally find an auto message very annoying. Anyone doing a lot of rescue work would get a lot of spam. The constructive recommended steps for article development are a great idea, however. <font color="404040">]</font> 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. ] (]) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::Personally, I'd rather not have an opt out for a couple of reasons. We can condense the content into drop-down format - "Click here for details" - thus mitigating issues of talkpage space. If someone gets ten in a row it still won't be ''that'' horrid. This bot is to present any up-to-date resources so even if someone didn't want one currently they easily may in the future but reality is that people opt out and rarely re-opt back in. I also see this as helping note if the tag is being "abused", that is if someone is misapplying the tag and they get multiple messages at least we'll have a record of that without having to investigate each AfD to confirm. In short the hassle of getting multiple messages can be somewhat addressed and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. ] 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article==
	{{hat\|Discussion on background and concepts collapsed for navigation.}}
	Currently when an editor attempts to create a new article, they get this message:

	* Before creating an article, please read Misplaced Pages:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
	* To experiment, please use the sandbox.
	* When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.

	Some editors here mentioned a really good idea, to add one sentence which encourages editors to create a userfied article first.

	Userfication works like this, instead of making: ] a new editor would make ].

	I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how this can be worded. And do you support this idea? ] (]) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I love the idea; I think it's a great way to channel newbie enthusiasm into a place that won't get either overwritten, or jumped on too fast. ] (]) 05:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	I was planning to make a this a proposal at the village pump—indeed, I still am—but I'm still trying to think through some issues. My main concern is that we don't want editors to waste effort building new articles in user space which then get promptly deleted when they are moved to article space. Drafting in user space doesn't help if the new article's subject matter is already covered in an existing article, or if the subject genuinely isn't notable enough. Won't we need some sort of support system (e.g. my outline below) on top of the basic idea? Feedback would be very helpful. - ] (]) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	:'''New article support'''
	:In a nutshell: help inexperienced editors to develop new articles with acceptable quality and notability, by (a) creating articles in user space by default, where they can be polished without time pressure, and (b) giving advice and support tailored to avoid the main causes of article failure. Possible elements include:
	:*General injunction (with explanation) not to create pages about yourself, your company, your friends or your band, pages that advertise, personal essays etc.
	:*Advice on searching to see whether the subject is already covered, and help on creating a redirect if appropriate.
	:*Easy access to notability advice for this category of subject matter: navigating the whole of GNG and SNG is a bit overwhelming for an inexperienced editor.
	:*Ditto for the basics of reliable sources and how to use them without duplicating copyright material.
	:*Hints, like "find your first two references before you start writing", "copy the structure of a similar article" (maybe that could be automated for some popular categories?), etc.
	:Technical features might include:
	:*Easy way(s) for editors to find their draft articles, e.g. "My drafts" tab or link.
	:*Drafts in user space being tagged {{tl\|NOINDEX}} automatically.
	:*Technique for telling new page patrollers and other potentially helpful editors whether to examine user space drafts.
	:*Possible need for cleaning up abandoned drafts by inactive user accounts.
	:As you can see, this is going in the direction of a guided workflow ("wizard")—going beyond normal wikipedia editing. It might work best if it was category-specific, e.g. there'd be one version for films, others for bands, albums, performers, MMORPG clans, etc. Each wizard would contain embedded best practice for structure, subject-specific notability, categories, advice on known reliable/unreliable sources, and a pre-flight checklist before moving the page into article space. Right now, I'm a little lost trying to work out how much of the support system is essential and how much is feature creep. The question is whether the editors we are trying to attract and retain (i.e. reasonably well-educated good faith contributors) actually need this level of support. - ] (]) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Just a passing comment, it's very-late/very-early for me right now. We've tried to address some of this at ]. There's also a nascent "create article" script but I can't find it right now. And I just recently posted to ] and got some good details on how to get a name and create a uspace subpage. I'll check it more tomorrow. Warning though - that's a whole lot of technical details which are difficult enough as they are. Combine that with the newer users' tendency to not read everything, it will always be a problem. People are generally goal-oriented (as opposed to rule-oriented), if your flow doesn't suit them, they will surge over the banks. ] (]) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	Another passing comment, and supplementary qquestion - as many, many new articles by new users are copyright violations or attack pages, encouraging new users to create articles in userspace would therefore mean there would be more copyvios and attacks in userspace. Would this not create patrol problems? Currently when monitoring recent changes I tend to ignore userspace. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #cc3300; padding: 3px">]</span><sub><span style="background: #ffffcc; color: #cc3300;">].</span></sub> 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I am really glad there is positive feedback about this idea, since ], this seems like a problem.
	:I moved the discussion to ''refactored out''. which is the talk page for the text every editor sees above a brand new article. I encourage everyone here to lend support to this proposal. ] (]) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	::I don't see why the fact that most deletions (or deletion debates) are about articles from relatively new editors is supposed to be a problem. It would be really amazing if most deletions were about articles from experienced editors, since these probably know better the do's and don'ts. I have no problems obviously with trying to help new editors write better articles (and find more suitable subjects), but the repeated suggestion that the fact that most deletions are for articles by newbies is somehow a ''problem'' is bizarre. ] (]) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	Yeah, really there are three strands here:
	*The notice that encourages contributors to create new articles in user space.
	*The policies for draft articles in user space, e.g. do they get patrolled, are they indexed by search engines, is copyvio a concern, etc?
	*Technology to help get articles right, e.g. breaking ] into bite-sized chunks like a wizard/checklist.
	Ikip is re-starting the first strand on ''(struck)'' Where should we discuss the other two? - ] (]) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	::I would bring up policies for draft articles in user space in ], asking where to ask.
	::The ] question can be asked on the talk page, and also on ]. ] (]) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	::Followup: The new article wizard is at (who woulda thunk? :) ]. ] created it and from the looks of it, it hasn't been worked on for a long time. The (long) discussion leading up to the creation of WP:YFA can be found ] and in the following section. A section at ] discusses how to create a user sub-page. I certainly would like to see a process where new users had an easy way to create their own subpage rather than crash onto the rock of deletionism. However noindexing, copyvios and content proliferation are all serious concerns. ] (]) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::Thanks. Looks like copyvio in user space might be the first major hurdle. What's the right place to discuss that? - ] (]) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	:Glad to see this getting some attention as I had given Pointilist a brilliant idea barnstar when this concept came up in a discussion on another matter.
	:# First let's see if there is some way to have it only pop up for new user accounts and/or accounts with a small number of initial edits, with an option that it can be bypassed in those cases where the account is one belonging to an established editor who has opened a new account.
	:# It should be then obviously written in a very simple manner so as to not confuse newcomers, unlike most of guideline and policy. We all know how confusing it can be for even seasoned editors.
	:#The warnings about copyvio should be repeated politely several times, as well as stressing the importance of decent sources... with a simple explanation that blogs and personal websites are not suitable except in vey specialized cases.
	:#It could include a link to members of welcoming committee or ARS and include a very encouraging note to seek input and advice before sending to mainspace. with our respects and apologies... We're here to help.
	:#And a very pointed warning that sending something to mainspace before it is ready will likely result in deletion...
	:We're a volunteer organization, and I do not think there will be a lack of editors willing to offer advice. Count me among the names heading that list! ''']''' '']'' 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Yeah, I didn't mean to sit on that nice barnstar for ever (!), and I 100% agree that this should be encouraging and very simple to use (that's why I tend towards category-specific wizards). However, I'd like our proposal to be bullet-proof before we send it into battle, and it looks like copyvio is a big issue for some people.
	::Given that one of the main advantages of userfication is that articles get enough time to discard their early problems, ''I'd like to avoid policing for copyvio in user space''. IMO where a user space page is marked {{tl\|NOINDEX}} with some sort of {{tl\|Construction}} notice, a reasonable amount of copyright material should be permitted under the usual academic terms "for private research and comment". The contributor would then have time to rework the concepts into non-copyvio form (I don't know whether CorenBot would get involved at this stage). What do you think? Where should this aspect get discussed further? - ] (]) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::It WAS a brilliant idea. And is copyvio in userspace/construction already being patrolled? WIki encourages the use of userpace to work out just such problems. All we need let new editors understand that the waters are deeper than they think and the should not wade in without their floaties. If an established editor messes up... well, he/she should know better. But as there are already processes in place to assist newcomers, all we need do is make it less confusing and more (new)user friendly. ''']''' '']'' 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::I refactored out the link to the other page, and removed my proposal on the other page. I don't think we are ready yet to present this to the larger community. ] (]) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::(e/c) I would tend to disagree on the "private research" bit for copyvios. For one thing, private can be much more easily done on your own computer, for another because mirror sites won't necessarily respect the noindex tag in the same way search engines do. Mostly because the end result will likely be copyvios sitting forever in uspace and because we just plain have to eliminate copyvio. This was recently discussed at WT:NPP (]) and the best suggestion for copyvio seemed to be immediate blanking of the copyvio part with an appropriate message. The text would still be available in history but not shown in public display. As far as finding copyvios, Coren would be able to confirm whether CSB scans uspace and how it responds. Putting the big black copyvio notice onto uspace pages would probably not be too friendly, but maybe Coren could work out a way to blank the text?
	:::For wider discussion on the issue, I'd suggest ] and ].
	:::As far as who sees the wizard, one solution I could think of is to have it as a gadget in Preferences. Newly registered users would have it enabled by default and it would stay on until they figured out how to turn things off in their preferences - and by then they've probably gained some clue, right? The MediaWiki software would need to check the pref and instead of going to the URL with "&edit&redlink=1" it would use "&edit&redlink=2", which would invoke the wizard. This is something a dev would have to do of course, perhaps Werdna would be interested. ] (]) 02:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

	===Proposed new addition to new articles===
	Pointillist had a good idea for the userfication noticfication, which I will move here.

	1 to 3 is the original, which everyone sees when they create a new article.

	4 is the new section:

	{\|Border=1 cellpadding=4
	\|
	* '''Before creating an article''', please read ], or ] for an existing article to which you can ] this title.
	* To experiment, please use the ].
	* When creating an article, '''provide ]''' to ]. An article without references may quickly be deleted.
	* You can start your new article first here: ]. This allows you to get the article in shape, take your time with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Misplaced Pages once it is ready to go. When your new article is ready, you can ] it into the main area.
	\|}

	'''The biggest priority is to make the new userefication section as short and concise as possible.'''

	The beauty of this new sentence is: <nowiki>]</nowiki>, which allows a user to simply click the link to start a new userfied page.
	] (]) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:Ikip, have you tested this with a blank page? I'm not sure REVISIONUSER will be magical when no revision has yet been made. I switched it over to Special:MyPage for now, 'til you can confirm it works. ] (]) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::RE: <nowiki>]</nowiki> good idea, I didn't know that was possible, the only problem with <nowiki>]</nowiki> is it creates an extra step, the editor has to then press "create this page". ] (]) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::It works. Try any page, like this one, ] then put in <nowiki>{{REVISIONUSER}}</nowiki> It also works for previously deleted articles, like ]. Remember to only click show preview. ] (]) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::MyPage could maybe be made to work by adding &edit&redlink=xx&preload=yy. xx would be 1 for now, 2 when the wizard gets going. yy would be for use when userfying an existing article and for new articles would preload a preamble including noindex and the underconstruction template.
	:::::Your way of using a magicword is simpler though, if it will work in the editnotice. ] (]) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Wow, wonderful, you are quite a genius. Anyway to tighten and shorten the text even more? ] (]) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Careful... the over-worked and quite dedicated Franamax does not recieve as much praise as he rightly deserves for his tireless efforts to improve wikipedia... else he'd be constantly running out to buy larger sized hats... and that would get expensive... (grin) ''']''' '']'' 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Heh, MQS you have burst my bubble. I truly took that as a compliment - now I see how it could be interpreted differently. lol. :) Perhaps the fact that I have linked several other places where this has been discussed has caused some resentment? Or someone new showing up casting ideas among the regulars? Dunno. Anyway, topic of longstanding interest to me, I only came back here to consider the best text - but we do need the right technical backing so new editors have a "short path" to what they want to accomplish. ] (]) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===Moving forward===
	{{hat\|Redrafts and discussion collapsed for navigation}}
	:Has this proposal died or just stalled? Or has it progressed somewhere without a link to it here?

	:In any case I'd suggest adjusting the original points to introduce the idea like this:

	{\|Border=1 cellpadding=4
	\|
	* '''Before creating an article''', please read ], or ] for an existing article to which you can ] this title.
	* When creating an article, '''provide ]''' to ]. An article without references may quickly be deleted.
	* To experiment, please use the ], or create your own ].

	* Or start your new article here instead: ]. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only ] it into the "live" Misplaced Pages once it is ready to go.

	\|}
	] (]) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

	It is no bad idea to encourage users to work up articles in userspace until they are ready to be pushed out of the nest.
	However …
	A lot of articles that are rightfully speedy-deleted are unsourced/negative BLPs or copyright violations. A lot of these are created by new or inexperienced users. Such pages would, I understand, still be eligible for deletion even in userspace, therefore userspace would have to be patrolled more rigorously - many recent changes/new pages patrollers currently ignore, or pay less attention to, userspace. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

	{\|Border=1 cellpadding=4
	\|
	* '''Before creating an article''', please read ], or ] for an existing article to which you can ] this title.
	* To experiment, please use the ].
	* When creating an article, '''provide ]''' to ]. An article without references may quickly be deleted.
	* You can start your new article first here: ]. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only ] it into the "live" Misplaced Pages once it is ready to go.
	\|}

	Here are some changes I made, incorporating many of Mark's sections. ] (]) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
	:So is this going somewhere as a proposed change? ] 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

	::I like that text, but it's not fair to imply that you can get your new article into shape in user space without saying something about potential libel and copyvio issues. As ] said in ] ''"some editors may use the technique of copy-pasting in a copyvio to start an article, then progressively rewrite the whole thing into an original presentation."'' I'd hoped NOINDEX would help, but that didn't fly, so how about adding a fifth bullet something like this (below)? - ] (]) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	{\|Border=1 cellpadding=4
	\|
	* Bear in mind that anyone with an Internet connection will be able to see your draft version while you polish it, so your unfinished article '''mustn't make libellous claims or infringe other people's copyright''', even if you intend to fix these issues before you move it. For advice on this, see <nowiki></nowiki>.
	\|}
	:::If this was said concisely perhaps combine the two like:
	* You can also draft a new article here: ]. You still must '''avoid libellous claims and infringing on copyright material'''. You can work on the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help on it, and then ] it onto the "live" Misplaced Pages once it is ready to go.

	:::Does this help? ] 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::The current template has no such warning for regular pages, so I don't see why this one should. The idea was to make this as short as possible. Each one of the existing lines is short. ] (]) 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not bothered either way, if it's not needed just drop the sentence. Can it be launched as a proposal whever it's to happen? ] 10:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Well, that sentence was to address ] concern about copyvio—it isn't essential on day one (I was just thinking it might smooth the path for the proposal). Once the feature is implemented we'll soon see how well it is working: if copyvio/libel in user sandboxes turns out to be a significant problem, then we can adjust the wording. - ] (]) 11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::I suggest then propsing without the copyvio sentence but mentioning it as a possible addition. Can this go forward now? ] 18:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	:Proposal text:
	{{cquote\|<nowiki>You can start your new article first here: ]. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only ] it into the "live" Misplaced Pages once it is ready to go.</nowiki>}}

	:''Note: Proposal at ]. Please comment there. ] 11:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	== A discussion of interest. ==

	{{cquote\|Be aware of ] and only delete an article when another measure (e.g., merging) is not appropriate.}}

	] In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. ] (]) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
	:great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.
	:But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? ] (]) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

	:It was suggested to take this to ]. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? ] 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	::No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. ] (]) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::Should we back-burner this for future AfD proposals or archive. ] 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD? ==
	*'''How many people believe we need a bot that does the following:'''

	Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by:

	#The bot reads the ] a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
	#The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (<span class="plainlinks">, </span>), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later.
	# Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, ], removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages.

	*'''Support''' Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. ]''' 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on ] if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. ] (]) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --<small>''Avant-garde a clue''</small>-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - couldn't hurt, although <s>an article</s> articles with various tags on <s>it</s> them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. <b>]</b> ] 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Does not concern the ARS''' - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	**Sounds like an offer of resignation after the ''James Burns orchestra'' is no more... --<small>''Avant-garde a clue''</small>-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	**Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? ] (]) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Not related to the function or goal of ARS''' But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. ] (]) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	**ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --<small>''Avant-garde a clue''</small>-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Comment, query''' I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? ] (]) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''"Why not?" support''' Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. ] (]) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{tl\|rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. ] 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''support''' No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article.
	*'''Support''' - What Jclemens said. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*:...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*::Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. ]''' 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*::They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*:::Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support.''' Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --] (]) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' surprised it doesn't exist yet ] (]) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. ] (]) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	*My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at ] as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	**It states the answer right there: ''Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted.'' This is somewhat addressed by my comment - ''This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality'' - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. ] 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors.
	:::Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces):
	::::<nowiki>http://en</nowiki>.wikipedia.org/search/?title='''NAME'''&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1
	:::For example:
	::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Article+Rescue+Squadron&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1
	:::I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.] (]) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
	*Qualified '''Support''', I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - ] (]) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. ''']''' '']'' 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

	===Bot has already been made and approved===
	<big>'''Found it: ]'''</big>

	"This bot will automatically notify article authors when "their" article is up for deletion in an Article for Deletion discussion."

	:] bot created and approved in January 2007.

	:More details: ] <!--User may have a copy of the program: User_talk:Jayden54#AFD_program-->

	:Opt out coding: ]

	:Currently not active, Bot was deactivated by the request of the creator, because he was "taking a very long wiki-break"

	:Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.

	:"I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task" So no one has the coding for this bot.

	{\| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
	!align="left" width="700"\| Past comments on this same idea, other bots
	\|-
	\|Bot requests page:
	:] "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated"
	:01:11, 27 November 2006: ], created Jayden54Bot
	:Our suggestion (short): ], <s>]</s>

	09:26, 29 September 2007:
	:]
	:Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

	:...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
	::A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

	;Other bots

	] <!--] "This bot is NOT a direct clone of my bot, because Cocoaguy is not using my source code " Jayden54

	Bot text is at ].-->
	\|}
	] (]) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

	===Motion to close bot discussion===
	Seems there is overwhelming support to try this and various past bots have also been created along these lines. Obviously this may have to wait a bit but I'd like to close and compact this one as it seems to have winded down a bit. If no one else wants to address this i will but it will have to wait a few.

	*'''Support''' as nom. ] 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

	==]==
	Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted.

	I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: ] it is really easy to install. ] (]) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

	== Most abused acronyms in an AfD ==
	I have thought a lot about this list, and am finally putting it down in print, what would you add to this list and why? Is my numbering correct?

	# ] ] "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This section names: "Plot summaries" "Lyrics databases" "Statistics" and "News reports", but editors often quote it for any list.
	# ] and ] "People notable only for one event". Used for any event, no matter how signifigant.
	] (]) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Yeah, for ], see to ]. :-) ] (]) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	::Lovely. After it'd been discussed elsewhere and in place for several days, one post here and it gets reverted without meaningful comment within 10 minutes of this post. ] (]) 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::That's not a closely watched page. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::No, but I would presume that ] is both more relevant and more closely watched than here, which is where the discussion actually took place. Something's wrong if describing a new consensus on an unrelated page immediately results in a reversion without discussion. ] (]) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Eh. It was reverted by Fritzpoll, who barely edited in the intervening two days. Plus, FP is active on BLP topics, but to my knowledge has never edited this talk page. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	::None of those are acronyms except for BLP1E, hehe.
	::On a more serious note, cruft is almost always used exactly the way it means, but bear in mind that if you're arguing that the level of detail is excessive you're going to ''at least'' be able to justify that claim if challenged. If not, well, making conclusions you can't support is blowing hot air.
	::As for ], be very careful about this, but you can almost always rewrite the article, disposing of the affectation of a biography. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::Thinking about it, and after AMIB comments, I removed ] and ]. I still think that ] is really abused though...] (]) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::AMiB, if you're going to be pedantic, BLP1E isn't an acronym either. It's an initialism. Ha! ] 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Ack! Hoist by my own petard. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::::1Es the one I encounter most frequently. They use all sorts, Some seem to grasp at the first policy that comes into their heads. When you look at the wording its clearly inapplicable , and it can be so obvious you feel almost like you’re insulting them to point it out. Grrrrrr! ] (]) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::You mean: ]? ] (]) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Yep thats the one. I dont yet have a seasoned ARS campaigners precision of expression :-) ] (]) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

	: The sad fact is that all Wikipedians use these initialisms as a crutch, some much more than others. My advice is to always be able to explain the policy or guideline ''in your own words'' before you use it, so that if challenged you can successfully defend its relevance. (And this might be a way to discourage their abuse -- get the other party to explain how a given acronym/initialism applies.) -- ] (]) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I have been toying with a way of making templates, that instead of typing ], you would type: <nowiki>{{WP:BLP1E}}</nowiki> and the name of the policy would be listed fully, with a link to the page. ] (]) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure where I turned it on but my browser does that for me. If I mouse over any internal link, it shows me the first few lines (including the full title) or the page the link points to. It's very useful. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

	* '''Question'''. Is this all regarding the common outcomes page or something else? ] 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::It is not regarding the common outcomes page. I just posted my ideas, and Jclemens then mentioned the outcomes page. ] (]) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

	*] (not an acronym) is often cited as a blanket policy to justify any article, despite saying "'''This policy is not a free pass for inclusion:''' articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the ]" <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*On ], while that section names a few examples, the page does point out earlier that "he examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see ]". Just because it's not specifically mentioned doesn't mean it's indiscriminate, although some analysis of what is and isn't indiscriminate is overdue. ] (]) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. This seems somewhat useful info but I'm unsure where it could be directed to? Arguments to avoid or ? ] 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Archiving methods ==

	Isn't it time automated archiving was set up for this page? The current method is that one editor archives what he doesn't like any more, and keeps here anything which gets his approval. Sections are simultaneously archived ''and'' kept here, other sections are archived less than a day after the last post in it... I can give examples if people would prefer those, but I think the general point is more important, that we either get a bot to do it (impersonal, more reliable), or continue to do it manually (more flexible) but with better care or some basic rules. ] (]) 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:It does appear that the archiving as of late has been irregular and contentious. I suggest we take advantage of one of the bots and set up automatic archiving. ] (]) 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

	::Actually that would screw up prior threads that are still relevant but have been collapsed. And Fram, I've been trying to archive threads to minimize IMHO unneeded drama. I've gotten quite a few offwiki complaints about it and Wikiproject's aren't soapboxes for or against deletionism/inclusionism so I've been trying to focus purely on the work here. That the accusations and disruption has been from two admins is probably the most alarming part but if you're unwilling or unable to work with other editors here we can look to some alternatives. I've been moving and collpsing threads, appropriately, or so I thought but AMIB wanted to say something more in one and for some reason also brought back the one about the sock farm. I'll post a note to that one and see if we can't archive it as well. The other outstanding threads were generally stalled in place because of the TfD RfC which I was hoping we could move on from. ] 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Ben. There are a couple of editors who regularly edit here who contribute absolutly nothing to the Article Rescue Squadron project (ironically this is how they approach most articles up for deletion too--they are only there to complain about everyone else's efforts, adding nothing of any value to the article itself).
	:::One in particular has tried everything in his power to derail this project, and harrassed several Article Squadron members.
	:::I wanted to have a ARS poll to topic ban this editor for ARS, and maybe we should still do this. ] (]) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::Off-wiki complaints are irrelevant, if they have a problem, they should tell so here. And if you want to minimize drama, then don't start throwing "drama" and other uncivil remarks out every time a discussion isn't to your liking, and instead of archiving threads where just prior your incorrect statements have been corrected, it would be better to either acknowledge your errors or just do some research before you make them. Furthermore, there is no reason why the RFC is archived and still on this talk page at the same time, or why the active discussion "Is it appropriate to put a rescue tag on a guideline page?" is removed here and archived twice on the same page, or why there is absolutely no order in the archives, neither in the individual pages (e.g. ]) or between the pages, making it very, very hard to find an older discussion again. Of course, when the same discussion starts Archive 25 and Archive 26, then it becomes easier again. And Ikip, if you want to discuss an editor, please start a new thread instead of derailing this one. But I don't think that a project that wants to silence its critics will give a very good impression. ] (]) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::Generally items are archived as the discussion warrants. It's generally peaceful enough around here minus your and A Man In Black's input that things would be discussed, discussion would die down and we'd mve on. This project's work concerns a tighter time frame s many threads were about a XfD r discussin that was nly active for a short time. The concern of finding something in our archives is the first I think I've ever heard. All the archives link to each other and are generally in a chronological order. A few items were double posted because somene unarchived them and then that discussion was rearchived. In short if you have something to say perhaps saying it once will do the trick, if you are repeating yourself it may be that the issue is much less important to other editors than you. ] 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Why archive something if not to be able to find it again in the future? As for chronological order? Archive 24 has a discussion from 16-17 March 2009, 25 Feb - 21 March 2009, 1-6 March 2009, 23-25 March 2009, and 23-27 September ''2008''... Archive 27: 10-24 April, 29 January, 29 March-4 April, 16-23 April, 17-19 April, 22-23 April, and 13-20 February. The rest of your comments are mostly irrelevant or ironic. ] (]) 11:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

	So um. This fighting is super amusing and all, but the bot archiving? Anyone care? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Yes, don't do it per discussion above. ] 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	::Which part? It's easy to keep a discussion from being archived, just by tagging it with {{tl\|unresolved}}. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

	:An archiving bot sounded good but Im not sure after reading Banjebois comments. On the other issue, I would support a topic ban for anyone who goes about blocking ASR members for no good reason, regardless of any constructive criticism and friendly banter they have to offer the project. Unless of course they undertake to give a lot more thought before issuing any further blocks! ] (]) 12:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

	::I have moved a number of permanently kept discussions to ]. Having too many of these makes this page too big and too cumbersome, but having such useful discussions and information gathered in one place instead of over thirty archives is obviously beneficial. This way, this page can be automatically archived, and all good info can be kept together anyway. This probably needs refining, but it's the way most projects work, and creates better archives which much less hassle. ] (]) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	::: Anything that saves time and hassle cant be bad! ] (]) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::In this case it was. These are issues that are still open and ongoing, those of us looking at long-range planning are still sorting the best way to handle many of these more complex issues. Those threads were collapsed so except for minimal space, the only concern was size and those were pretty small. All in all not an improvement and making things harder for keeping things organized. ] 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Then bring back the ongoing ones. There were two sections with posts from March, and there were no posts from April 2009 at all. "Harder for keeping things organized"? At least in this way we could have decent archives. ] (]) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::::We've been archiving manually since the project began and this is the first I've heard that anyone couldn't find something, which is the point of archiving - that you can reference something when you need to. Almost all archiving is inherantly chronological. Threads are generally archived by stale date not start date. This haven't been concerns until recently and once a few of these more voluminous threads die down things should be quite reasonable again. Perhaps adding an archive indeax would make sense so it's easier to access the threads? ] 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::As shown above, it is not chronological, neither by start date not by stale date, but more or less randomly. Why would you manually archive things in a haphazard way and then add an index so that people can find anything back in that mess, when you can have a bot doing the same things much better? Your care above was "keeping things organized", but things are ''not'' organized now, and no good reason is given why an archive bot is not acceptable. That I am the first to raise this issue is not really indicative of anything: these archives are only read a few times a month, so the less effort is put into them (to create them ''and'' to search them afterwards), the better. ] (]) 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

	Since there are demonstrably problems with the current archiving, and solutions for all remarks which lead to opposition against automated (bot) archiving, I have attempted to set up Miszabot to archive this page automatically (discussions without new posts in the last 7 days). All discussions at the top of the talk page will ''not'' be automatically archived, as I have added a hidden timestamp in the far future. Once you think these discussions may be archived, you can simply remove the hidden comment. Likewise, new discussions you want to have around for a bit longer can be kept here in the same way. This is the first time I have set up the archivebot, so if there are errors in how I did it, just let me know and I'll try to fix it. The auto-archives should start with #31. If people prefer a longer archiving time, no problem, but since 7 days is the time of AfD's and Prod's as well, it seemed logical. ] (]) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Sorry but your fix creates its own problems. The only "problems" seemed to be early archiving of some threads which you seem to agree can now be aged seven days before archiving. I've added a search option to the archive box to help the stated issue of not being able to find items. Perhaps this will address the assumptions of other editors motives and help us all move forward? ] 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	::How cooperative to state that my fix creates its own problems, without then listing even one of them, while at the same time misrepresenting the current problems (it's not only "early archiving of some threads", but also "late archiving" of others, which gives us archives without any order, which then has to be fixed through a search box). Anyway, could you, perhaps, please, state what the problems with the archive bot are, so that people can discuss them and see whether they are truly a problem and/or can be fixed? ] (]) 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps we're missing each other's thoughts here. You posited that there was a problem and others agreed that waiting a week to archive stale threads seemed a reasonable solution. I've agreed to that compromise. You stated that you feel you couldn't find ''something?'' in the archives and we've added a search box to also adddress that. Now you seem concerned that we aren't archiving certain threads fast enough. Sorry, I don't see the problem with that. Not all threads are created equal and it would be foolish not to point out the obvious that your main and possibly only contributions here have been to disparage this project. Hanging around just to help us see how seemingly bad we are seems like a terrible idea and one whose only net result is to cause more disruption. The old system worked fine until yourself and AMIB came along, IMHO, filling up thread after thread with rather pointy and uncivil comments. Valid points - that is, anything constructive - simply got lost in unhelpful "drama". This is not a soapbox or the wild west frontier where we wage battles as Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. All this non-stop prickliness has gotten in the way of actually addressing some solutions to issues that others have been working on while simultaneously making this talkpage rather toxic and unwelcoming. There's a common saying that can apply to the archiving concern, if it ain't broke don't fix it. You've pointed out three concerns and others have agreed and I've fixed two of them. The third, essentially archiving all threads exactly seven days stale doesn't work here as many of these items are on hold. I see no reason to further change what had been working up until recently and your other stated concerns have been addressed so I'm left feeling you wish to simply engage as you have done on seemingly every other thread and that holds little interest I'm afraid. ] 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::"I've agreed to that compromise"? I must have missed that agreement then, last I noticed was that you denied any problems, and only added a search box, which is helpful but insufficient. There are disputes over when to archive things: you state that the bot would archive some things too early, I state that you archive some things too soon and some too late, but that the bot at least can be made not to archive any section pretty easily, with future timestamps. This system works for every other project talk page I know of, from the contentious ones like ] to the more mundane ones. I can't help but feel that it is you who wants to object, simply because I made the proposal, and even though other people like Jclemens and FeydHuxtable have no problems with this. But I'm glad you've brought the old "drama" up again, that's really helpful. This page now is 250Kb long, so perhaps we do have some archiving problem after all...] (]) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have poked at a sore subject. I would like to archive some of the itms that seemed to have run their course but a rough consensus is that we should wait a week to let things go stale. Up until recently this really hasn't been an issue. I'm hoping it won't be again as the recent events have delayed actions, and thus archiving other items. I pretty much would have the same response to the general idea of auto-archiving regardless of who presented it. Personally I see the volume n this page as a symptom of larger issues beyond ARS but I'm choosing to work on teh areas that I am best able. ] 10:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Old bot idea==
	I found this at AfD: ]
	:"I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at ]".
	I don't know what happened to this idea ... ] (]) 05:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
	:It was probably abandoned for {{tl\|find}}. ] 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Red cunt hair ==

	Just a heads-up; the previously rescued ] has now been deleted; I've taken it to DRV ] because I don't see a consensus in ] - but it's not looking too good. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">]]</span></small> 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

	:Normally I'd pitch this as canvassing (hey guys, come back me up at DRV), but a comment made there bears discussion. "" Where did this attitude come from? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I have no idea where that came from. ARS is chartered to ''make improvements'' on articles that are ''salvageable''. We're no more chartered to sit as judges on any article than any other editors are. ] (]) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::If the article was rescued, and then got deleted anyway, against consensus, then it does affect all of us. You can't have rogue editor ignoring everyone in the AFD, and deciding on their own what to do, or the consensus system becomes irrelevant. ]''' 10:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::"ignoring everyone in the AFD", that is, except for those that supported deletion, I suppose? Anyway, this deletion review is already at the correct venue, i.e. DRV: the ARS has nothing to do with that process. ] (]) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Ignoring the majority, I should've said. There was obviously no consensus for delete. ]''' 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::A majority of 11 keeps vs. 10 deletes. Of course, AfD's aren't a votecount and strength of arguments is more important than raw numbers, so it may well be that we have an admin who hasn't ignored anyone or any opinion, but given them all the weight they deserve, or it may be that we have an admin who has misjudged the closure, without being "rogue" and so on. But again, that's a case for DRV, not for ARS. ] (]) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::I just noticed that in your reply to me, you for some reason included the edit summary ""Red cunt hair" 12,600 hits on Google". It's not really useful to make such arguments in edit summaries, and it is hardly relevant anyway, since "black cunt hair" also gives more than 10,000 hits. ] (]) 11:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Sorry, this isn't clear: is there an opportunity and a need to improve a threatened article? If not, why is this section here? --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	::To canvass inclusionists, just like everything else on this page. ] (]) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::That's both incivil and untrue. If you want your move proposal to be taken seriously, such open and unjustified antagonism isn't helping. ] (])`
	:::: The comments on that DRV suggest that he's right, however. <b>]</b> 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Comments to one DRV suggest that ''everything'' on this page exists to canvass inclusionists? For certain non-traditional interpretations of "everything", perhaps, but not in any meaning I routinely use. ] (]) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Get bent. In the absence of anything relevant to the scope of the Squadron, I'm tagging this as resolved. Discussion about scope and scope creep could be topical in its own section, though. I'll personally stay out of it but will try to rescue a couple of articles instead. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. In this case I don't see what we can do without actually being able to work on the article but making blanket accusations against the whole project seems less than productive. If the article did exist we would apply the {{tl\|rescue}} tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve Misplaced Pages in this manner. Jumping on editors for stepping out of form seems likely over-reacting. If closers on AfD and DrV can't adequately weight the many facets of a discussion that is a different issue that ARS has no control over. ] 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	**Hey, one more incident where nearly everyone agrees that it is canvassibng, but you don't... DRV is about the AFD closure, not about the merits of the article, so imprvong an article during a DRV would have no effect on the discussion, as it is irrelevant. The only thing you can do on a DRV is argue that the closer interpreted the diuscussion incorectly, which has nothing to do with the ARS. Of course labelling ''all'' the work of the ARS as canvassing is incorrect, but when you have people who argue that ''nothing'' is canvassing, no matter how blatant, then some backlash is to be expected. ] (]) 07:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
	***(sigh) Did I state anywhere that I didn't see this as canvassing? Please stop mischaracterizing me or the work of this project which you apparently disagree at every turn. And you're wrong; ARS does improve articles at DRV even saving a few but more important helping others see that AfD's sometimes close in error and that notable subjects are deleted mistakenly. DRV is not AfD 2.0 but if, for example, the AfD stated no notability, etc but in process of the DRV new sourcing showed notability then the entire issue becomes moot. We don't delete an article just because the process said to, we keep or delete because it's that right result at the time. One reason DrVs are overturned is that opinions were presented with less information that we now have in hindsight. This isnt a battle to keep or delete. This is part of an overall project to serve our readers with the best articles possible. As to the canvassing warning sirens? My point has been confirmed again that by making a huge deal out of it has caused much more drama than simply handling it civilly. Ergo the complaints about the post caused much more divisiness than the post itself ever did. ] 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
	****"More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. " certainly does not give the impression that you consider this canvassing. And where did I "mischaracterize the work of this project"? Creating a new, adequate article instead of a previously AfD deleted one is normal editing process and does not concern DRV (or ARS). Only when a page is salted can a trip down DRV lane be necessary to get it unsalted. As for drama, you are still the only one going on about this, just like you have not given even one example of an editor who canvassed here and was civilly adressed by you, thereby solving that problem. ] (]) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. It may make sense to allow the DRV to finish but ] is the userfied article. Unsure how similar to the deleted article it is. ] 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Other wikiprojects are conducting themselves the exact same way as ARS is, with absolutely no criticism==
	Misplaced Pages editors in other wikiprojects are pretty much free to post whatever links they want.
	{{hat\|Discussion in context of posting relevant XfD to wikiprojects collapsed for navigation. FAQ box added to top of talkpage.}}
	{\| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
	!align="left" width="700"\| DRV notices and discussions in other projects:
	\|-
	\|
	# ] "Just so everyone knows, Zezima (edit\|talk\|history\|links\|watch\|logs) is up at DRV" (more)
	# ] "Sorry to all the RuneScapeWikipedians out there, but Wookieepedia is on AfD/DRV every other week, and that has been featured in notable/reliable third party publications"
	# ] with A Man In Black telling editors that "Heads up, there's a bit of edit warring going on at ] over some game guide content. Some extra eyes would be appreciated." and another editor saying, "This should be a lot simpler than the current DRV we're going through." '''Question:''' ''So it is acceptable for the editors at WikiProject Video games to canvas editors to join edit wars in articles but wikiproject Article Rescue Squadron can't?''
	#] active discussion about whether to take an article to DRV. ]
	# ] "The recently deleted Pokémon copyright templates are now on DRV here"
	#]
	# ]: "I'd be taking this to WP:DRV", "I've nominated 17 of the 'nationality' categories for deletion at ]"..."I wasn't aware of DRV, it looks like that may be the best way to go. I'll take up the issue at DRV tonight, unless someone wants to start up the discussion in the meantime."
	# ] "The Category:Knuckleball pitchers was deleted a few days ago as a result of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers. I am planning to seek to overturn this decision at WP:DRV, in which several issues will be raised, including the fact that procedure was not followed in notifying readers of the category being up for deletion"..."The discussion is continuing, and it's been moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. So far 16 favor "relisting" the article, which could result in restoring it, and 16 endorse its deletion."
	# ]
	#] "There is now a DRV on the categories for Wranglers, a travesty Cantabrigians will wish to remedy."
	#] "The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination...But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors....In this case I concur with the suggestion to take it to DRV, in particular per the difference between this outcome and this one...That's the easy way out. But, DRV may not be the right place to discuss the annihilation of an entire class of articles...DRV would only mean only a delete/no-delete verdict, without any scope for further discussion on other prospects"
	# ] "The 2nd wranglers cfd has been closed as delete and the closer has declined an invitation to re-open. Perhaps someone would like to start a DRV on both the wranglers categories."
	#] "not been able to work on the project to do list in a few weeks due to some AfDs and DRVs. It looks like I might have to deal with yet another DRV for two of the IRC-related user categories as well."
	#] "DRV for Alexis Grace is at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28#Alexis_Grace; procedural DRV to examine the issue of Wikiprojects determining their own notability guidelines. Black Kite"
	#] "Was it speedied? You could take it to DRV and see the consensus? Right, I've posted it on DRV. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 26. This isn't lobbying, just mentioning it so all parties know."
	#] "Template:Emotion-footer seems to be a list of topics that may lend themselves with being dictionary definitions rather than articles. Now pending at DRV is the Disappointment DRV. Your comments at that DRV may help in resolving this Psychology(?) issue. Thanks."

	#] ] "Some editors are trying to delete the weapon systems list from this article. It is the main part of this article. Here is the last revision of the intact article: This article already survived a recent AFD, a recent incident report, and a recent DRV.United States military aid to Israel (edit\|talk\|history\|links\|watch\|logs). See: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel.
	#] "Two things seem to have been deleted here, firstly Association of Nene River Clubs and secondly, and more importantly, the fall-out seems to have lost us user:Renata. I can quite understand why 8-( If I take this waterways-related article to WP:DRV, will there be any assistance from this WikiProject? I'm happy to do some legwork over arguing the deletion process, but I know practically nothing about the subject matter and so cannot make promises to do anything about fixing it. Is this Association notable? Is this Association notable according to the standards of WP:N? Can anyone assist with the sort of referencing it needs added, so as to pass the attentions of people with this sort of attitude to content."
	#] "I also suggested that if he just wanted to recreated the stubs to either go through WP:DRV or discuss the matter here first."
	#] "I added a deletion review for the Abubakar Bello-Osagie article, as he has now played a fully professional league match (he played a Campeonato Brasileiro Série A match, check here), thus he now passes WP:ATHLETE. The deletion review is available here. Feel free to give your opinions."
	#] "This category has been deleted and its subcategories have all been nominated. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_7#Category:Fictional_characters_by_superhuman_power How do we get this reversed? This category represents several hours of work by multiple people and it would be a shame if future visitors to wikipedia could no longer benefit from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irate velociraptor (talk • contribs) See Contesting_after_deletion. That's your best bet. Honestly, remember that this isn't 'your' site. All of us have had hard work deleted, and while we don't always agree with it, if the majority comes down and says 'this goes', then it goes. Essentially you want a Deletion Review (see WP:DRV). Also, please don't forget to sign your posts :) -- Ipstenu (talk\|contribs) 13:39, 14 March 2007"

	\|}
	*
	* The word deletion in wikiprojects: <Big>''''''.</big>
	* The word AFD in wikiprojects: .
	<!--http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=20&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=spamming+afds+prefix%3AWikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject+-->

	What is amazing in all of these DRV and deletion discussions, some several pages long, is there is no argument that these discussions should or should not be taking place on these pages. These editors actively argue deletion strategies and tactics, with no repurcusions. What is also amazing is that many of these wikiprojects do the same thing we do: actively save or delete articles, the only difference is, is that their focus is much narrower.

	I am tired, no other project gets as much scrutiny and nit picking as article rescue squadron does. No other wikiproject has been put up for deletion 3 times.

	Maybe from now on, if someone comes and complains about this project, we simply refer them to the now dormant ], and tell them to restart that project.] (]) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	*Good stuff. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**I was thinking of creating a special FAQ page for this page, incorporating some of this information, whenever someone comes here to complain about, for example, canvassing, or that what we are doing is outside of our project, etc. We can simply refer them to this FAQ. Instead of having to deal with the same complaints repeatedly. ] (]) 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***Don't bet on it helping, but it's a good idea anyways. ] (]) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	****Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate it. ] (]) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*****I've reached my limit on this subject but I can manage to muster a grunt of agreement. Personally, I'm moving towards just ignoring. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	*"These editors actively argue deletion strategies and tactics, with no repurcusions. " There are no such repercussions, because viewpoints aren't met with "Maybe from now on, if someone comes and complains about this project, we simply refer them to the now dormant ], and tell them to restart that project." If you went to ] with a decent argument for dismantling ], for example, you'd get criticism of your argument and ideas on how to use your ideas, not "Make your own project, you're not welcome in ours."<p>Similarly, those projects have a topic, and as a practical matter include all editors interested in that topic, whether or not their names are on a "members" list or not. Their viewpoint is largely that of all editors interested in the subject. What's ]'s subject? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**<S>AMIB, I think you would be much more welcome at ]. Your continued disruption has been brought up here numerous times. Although this is a minor issue, your views on articles appear to be starkly counter to this project, for example see AMIB's new essay: . That said, I can't emphasize this enough (and predictably you make this the main counterpoint), this is not about AMIB views, this is about your actions within this project.<p>This has nothing to do with whether an editor is or is not on a membership list, this has everything to do with continued harrassment, hounding and disruption, at a level that no other wikiproject has to endure. <p>For the past several months, AMIB has been the editor spearheading this disruption. ENOUGH. AMIB, you are welcome to go and restart ].<p>Unfortunately, AMIB probably won't leave willingly. ] (]) 04:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
	***I have added a FAQ tag, which links to this page, ]. I welcome good faith edits to this page, in fact, please mercilessly edit this page. ] (]) 04:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	****"Get lost, deletionist" would be exactly what I was referring to. And you linking to an ''old version'' of an incomplete, currently mostly tongue-in-cheek essay doesn't really show anything. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*****<s>] is that way >>> 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
	******I'll also thank you to stop separating people into "members" and "critics" and . If you call for good-faith edits, expect to get them. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 07:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	First, errors on other pages don't make it correct to do the same here, obviously. I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't. People on the project often disagree on what to keep or not anyway (on ], Hiding and I are often taking opposite positions, even though we are both active members of the comics project). E.g. in ], there are two such neutral messages. I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here. ] (]) 07:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*Fram, how can you call these "errors": it is the status quo. I appreciate many of your comments here. But, Fram, I think you would be more comfortable at ]. If you decide to stay here, I think you need to accept that DRV notifications, AFD notifications, and deletion discussions are an acceptable part of all wikiprojects. ] (]) 07:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**I'll choose the projects I care to hang around for myself, thank you. I am quite aware that you are trying every way you can imagine to get people critical of some things here removed from this project and talk page, but that's not how it works. I notice that when uninvolved people come here or discuss it elsewhere, they often tend to agree when it concerns e.g. the canvassing aspect of some posts here. You are free to come to any project you like and react against canvassing that happens there (whether for keeping or deleting things), just like I am free to do the same here. But congratulations on you finding a canvassing post to the comicsproject from early 2007 where the first reply was to send the editor to the correct venue, i.e. DRV, with the additional remark "Honestly, remember that this isn't 'your' site. All of us have had hard work deleted, and while we don't always agree with it, if the majority comes down and says 'this goes', then it goes." Hardly a ringing endorsement of canvassing... But I admit it, one post from 2007 indicates that that project obviously has the same persistent problem as the ARS talk page has... ] (]) 08:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***The harrassment and disruption has reached its zeinth. I applaud Ben for being so patient for so long, but I think enough is enough. <p>I am simply suggesting your views maybe appreciated more at ]. I don't have a problem with you continuing editing here, if you acknowledge that this project get the same benefits of all wikiprojects. I disagree with most everything you say, but thats okay. I applaud you for not participating in this harrassment and disruption. Thank you. ] (]) 09:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	****I am not interested if my views are appreciated or not, I am not here to discuss things with likeminded people only. Healthy projects need people with different points of view, to keep things balanced, and to better know the thoughts and opinions of other factions and individuals in the Misplaced Pages community. As for "this project gets the same benefits of all wikiprojects": no, only wgere applicable. You (plural) don't want to be treated like any other wikiproject (e.g. by putting your tags on the article page instead of the talk page), and sometimes with good reason. But this may also imply that in some situations, you don't get the benefits other projects have. But specifically for canvassing and so on: I have stated and state again that neutral notices about XfD's within the scope of the ARS are generally acceptable (e.g. "X is up for deletion. I wonder if it would be useful to tag it for the ARS?" is acceptable: however, if some people then would rush to the discussion to vote keep, without improving the article to address the problems, adn if this would be a recurring action, then this appraoch may have to be rethought). This is the same as I would state for any project. ] (]) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*****Every organization has social norms, rules, and ways they conduct business. If you don't like the way things are done at the ARS at this point, as far as what you call "canvassing", report it to an outside party. Because I suspect it will continue, and may even increase, despite your objections here. <p>ARS should not have to continue to go through unprecedent scrutiny ] by editors whose edit history shows they are opposed to the very spirit of the project. Of the hundreds of wikiprojects, no other wikiproject has had to endure the harrassment that this project has. <p>Now that the line is drawn, its time to come up with solutions when it is crossed again. ] (]) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	******I don't see anyone present who's opposed to the spirit of improving articles. I see lots of disagreement over how. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	******It would be better if you stuck to discussing projects, rules, interpretations, ... and avoided discussing editors, certainly when you are ''again'' wrong about what I am or think. I have saved articles which were up for deletion, I have created quite a few articles, written DYKs and GA-class articles, improved other articles, and so on. I am not planning on changing my Misplaced Pages behaviour anytime soon. ] (]) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	******"… ''scrutiny ad nasium'' …"??? Dude, nobody's looking up your nose. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*I know I've clashed with ] and ] before over (what I perceive to be) excessively inclusionist attitudes, so don't worry, you folks aren't the only project I don't get on with :) ] (]) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**I said it at Deletion Review, and I repeat it here: Don't take the attempts by a battleground-seeking minority to pervert the ARS into something that it is not, as evidence that it actually ''is'', or is intended to be by non-battlers, what it is not. And don't think that simply because you disagree with ] you therefore disagree with many people here. ] (]) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Uncle G, your post gave me an idea. Maybe we should find out what the ARS members think about this discussion? Is it acceptable for this project to behave like the hundreds and hundreds of other wikiprojects? 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	=== Simple rebuttal ===
	{{hat\|More of the same but two issue areas highlighted of posting non-NPOV talkpage threads that smack of canvassing and separate but perhaps interelated issues of AfD getting empty !votes with suggestion that ARS look to some internal solutions.}}
	Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it. Come to ] some time: almost anything posted as an AfD notice there is eventually deleted. Even on projects where more members are of the inclusionist bent (] comes to mind), deletion discussions are posted there to alert experts on the subject matter.

	This is manifestly untrue of this page. ] - ] 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*Yet, we end up with how many AFDs in which most of the deletes come from those who have no knowledge or the subject under discussion, are unwilling to look for sources anyway, and don't care even if sources do turn up. It seems that in at least most of my experiences, a minority of experts (however we define that here) on the subjects ever comment in the respctive AfDs. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**If you want to encourage people to stick to deletion policy at AFD, AFD Patrol is ]. We deal in ''article rescue'' here. ] (]) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Same tired argument, ignoring the reality of, oh, nearly every single wikiproject. ] (]) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*I am glad that you acknowledge that it is okay to post Deletion discussion, AFDs, etc, on almost every wikiproject but this one. Is there any other exception on wikipedia but this page? <p>Also, it seems that you and Fram need to sit down and discuss, why, in Fram's eyes, posting Deletion discussion, AFDs, etc is wrong: "errors on other pages don't make it correct to do the same here, obviously. I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't." Of course, Fram will argue that there is no contradiction. ] (]) 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**Ikip, as you can read in the quote you just gave, I argue that posting deletion discussions and so on which fall under the scope of the project is ''not'' wrong, only that posting non-neutral notices or notices which do not fall under the scope of a project is wrong. Please don't misrepresent my opinion. ] (]) 09:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***What is the scope of this wikiproject? To save articles, again the only difference between our project and comic books, is ours is wider. <p>Please clarify, can we all agree that any and all projects which have a narrow subject, can post AfDs, DRVs, etc?<p>There is a pretty wide gray line between: "come and keep X" and "X is up for deletion". ] (]) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	****The aim of the ARS is to improve articles (or "content", if you prefer) that is up for deletion in XfD. The aim of the ARS is not to save articles as such, but to save articles by improving them so that they meet the relevant policies and guidelines. As for the gray line: it is best to stay as far away from it as possible, to avoid even the impression of canvassing. And wrt posting AFD's: all AfD's posted for rescue are already listed on this talk page, and on the user talk page add-on many of you have, and on the category for ARS tagged pages, and on the main project page. Additional listing of this page here, certainly when enhanced by comments inviting people to help keep the article at the AfD, are unnecessary and canvassing. Listing pages outside the scope of the ARS (e.g. pages where a merge is discussed) is also canvassing. It's really not that hard: if a message is perfectly neutral and clearly within the scope of the project, then it is not canvassing. Everything else will have more and more shades of canvassing, sometimes explicit, sometimes more implicit, and should be avoided and discouraged. ] (]) 09:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*****Again, can we all agree that any and all projects which have a narrow subject, can post AfDs, DRVs, etc? <p>It gets rather draining to have editors whose edit history tends to be counter to this project goals and ambitions, telling us members of ARS what the aim of ARS is. I sincerely feel that your talents and intellect would be best utilized in a project that matches your views. This is not that project. 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	******Us and you again. What does someone have to do to qualify to be a member? In most Wikiprojects, the mere willingness to watchlist the project page is membership. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	******I have replied to your question over and over again, you'll have to ask a ''different'' question if you want a different answer. As for my edit history; I don't see how it is "counter to this projects goals and ambitions", since I have saved articles at AfD, sourced articles, written articles (including a number of DYKs and two GAs), ... That I have also deleted many pages and nominated a lot for deletion does not mean that I don't support the ARS in principle. "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." This is what I have tried throughout my years here, just like, I hope, everyone else. ] (]) 13:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*******{{vandal\|A Man in Black}}:<br>Two 3rrs in the past couple of days on this page. <br>Removal of ARS tags from articles, <br>deletion of templates, <br>arguing against almost all initatives the ARS takes, <br>a bad block over posting notices on talk pages, which is perfectly okay. ] (]) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	********And I'm a sock of Plautus Satire. But you didn't answer my question. Who is qualified to comment? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*←''(A Nobody 08:56) "It seems that in at least most of my experiences, a minority of experts (however we define that here) on the subjects ever comment in the respective AfDs."'' I think you're onto something. Deletionists of no special expertise hang out at "Articles for Deletion" because that function is in the name of AfD. But inclusionists of no special expertise have no 'Articles for Inclusion' to hang out at. That creates an imbalance of excess deletionism. Thus it's logical and beneficial for project neutrality to have a venue like Article Rescue Squadron for inclusionists of no special expertise. (Not that I'll admit to that :) ] 09:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**That is nonsense, based upon a wholesale mischaracterization of who "hangs out" at AFD that I know several editors will laugh at for its erroneousness. Please stop trying to turn the ARS into a battleground with this namecalling nonsense. ] (]) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***In at least the fiction AfDs, I have seen those on the delete side outright say "I don't really know anything about this", "I would never argue to keep," and "I'm not interested in seeing if sources exist", etc. (actual quotes the likes of which I have seen multiple times now, but this is not the place to discuss specific editors), ergo, comments by non-experts. There are clearly some who indeed do hover around AfDs with no interest in improving articles at all. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	* The ARS themselves could solve this problem at a stroke.
	**Identify those ARS members who aren't sticking to the ARS guidelines (i.e. never, or hardly ever, improving articles so that they survive AfD) and who instead are merely block voting "Keep" on AFDs (especially when those !votes are of poor quality), repeatedly canvassing for such votes, or agitating or wikilawyering over deletion related issues.
	**Remove them from the list of ARS members and tell them that their "efforts" aren't needed here.
	**Problem solved.
	* <b>]</b> 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**Wow, an unpreceded purging of members. I wonder if such a strict suggestion has ever, in the history of wikipedia, been suggested on any other wikiproject. but then again, ARS is unique in the level of scrutiny, criticism, and harrassment it recieves, to cite one of many examples, no other wikiproject has gone to MfD three times. Again, those editors whose philophy is counter to this project, there is an opposing project that has laid dormat for some years now. ] (]) 12:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***You've suggested that two people leave ''in this very talk page section''. ] is ''not'' an opposing project. This project is about article rescue. It is not AFD Patrol, nor Deletion Sorting, nor an "-ism" advocacy medium.<p>I suggest thinking long and hard about making further accusations against other people of "hypocrisy". I also suggest asking yourself a question that it is time everyone on this talk page asked xyrself: What was the last article that I ''actually did article rescue work on''? ] (]) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	**That seems awfully unwelcoming and uncivil. In theory we would coach "problematic" editors to show them why empty !votes perhaps caused more harm than good. Unsure why this project would take a step to police its own members in such a way. Frankly this would seem a better ] overall issue to identify and target all editors who make empty !votes but even that may cause more problems than it solves. ] 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***Another solution would be to select a moderator from the existing members who'll remove canvassing notices and counsel those involved about the correct role of the squadron. ] (]) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	***It's not about the AFD discussion contributions. Black Kite is talking about ARS "members" who aren't actually ''doing article rescue'', or even focussing upon it on this talk page. ] (]) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	****I think part of Ikip's concern is that some making these claims are themselves not engaging in article rescue either, so... Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	Black Kite has identified the problem yet again. ☺ There is, in fact, an identifiable problem with the ARS' structure that I was going to bring up, here. It's exemplified by the recent {{On AFD\|red cunt hair\|Red cunt hair (2nd nomination)}} débacle. The problem is that we have "members", who sign up at ]. One doesn't get to be an article rescuer by signing a page in the project namespace. One gets to be an article rescuer by ''rescuing articles''. Nothing more, nothing less.<p>The RCH discussions are a striking example of what has, in recent months, gone seriously wrong with the ARS. There were two editors there who were ''real'' article rescuers, since they ''worked on the article to rescue it'' when it was at AFD. I worked on the draft (]) when it was at Deletion Review. The two ''real'' article rescuers were ] and ], both of whom have rescued articles in the past, and both of whom I've worked with on rescues in the past. (Heck, I'm working with LinguistAtLarge, discussing how to improve {{On AFD\|had had had had had had had had had had had\|James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher}}, ''now''.) ''Neither'' of those people are ARS "members". I'm not myself. But we all three ''did some article rescue''. In stark contrast, we had signed-up ARS "members" who contributed ''nothing'' to the actual rescue, but rather spent all of their time in the AFD discussions.<p>We seem to have a growing divergence between being an ARS "member" and being an actual, honest-to-goodness, article rescuer. And this divergence has been spurred on by the attempts of a few to turn the ARS into a battleground. The recent efforts (by ], above) to drive away editors who espouse working on articles and who actually have done so in the past have crossed a line, and are unacceptable in my view.<p>This is not ]. It is not ]. This is ''article rescue''. And it is time that it was reclaimed by article rescuers, from the people who are trying to turn it into a battleground and pervert it into something that it is not. ] (]) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Umm, hmmm. First off let's not quibble on who is or isn't an article rescuer, that seems unproductive. I have done quite a lot but not on ''that'' article. And XfD doesn't require an editor make edits to an item to qualify on offering an opinion. It would be nice but that's not a rule. I'm also unconvinced it's helpful to determine blame for who turned this page into a battleground. Frankly we've have had many insightful threads which have impacted this project and Misplaced Pages positively. What remains, IMHO, is to offer constructive suggestions and actionable items to what holds promise. Everyone, as always, is ultimately responsible for what they post. ] 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Benjobi, I think you should recognize that recent conduct by members has caused a reaction. I'm suggesting you select a coordinator from the existing membership to prevent this happening in future. ] (]) 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I'll meet you on your talkpage to suss out some forward motion, this talkpage is a bit special at the moment. ] 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:I have to agree with Uncle G on this, watching this issue from the sidelines. ARS is a well-intended project, but that word "rescue" means an ''active'' participation in trying rescue articles that would otherwise be deleted through AFD. That doesn't mean just going to the AFD discussion and stating "keep"; that should only be done if the editor in question ''has'' made some attempting, even if just dropping a hyperlinked source into the article in question to help keep it. Thus, in terms of canvassing, posting requests here to get editors to help add sources or whatever else is necessary to an article up for rescue ''is'' appropriate (that's in the project's scope), but not for the purposes of adding !votes to an AFD without additional action. In contrary, the "canvasing" that listed above to specific Wikiprojects is appropriate because its implied that the project contains expert editors on the subject and thus can help guide the discussion particularly in light of that project's guidelines. That works both ways for keeps and deletes. --] (]) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::When an article's compliance with policy arguably falls below the threshold for inclusion, then ARS members ought to improve it before voting. When an article's been improved so that its now clearly worthy of staying, having a say on the AfD is sometimes all thats required.
	Thanks to all non ARS members who have took the time to share their views on how we conduct ourselves – we'll certainly take your input into consideration. Ikip is to be commended for recognising that the sheer scale of deletionists efforts against worthy topic areas needs a collective responce, and ideally a change to policy. We take on board the point that this page may not be the best forum, we'll investigate the possibility of setting up a sibling relationship with ] . Thanks again for the input, perhaps for the sake of balance some of you will offer your wise council on the talk pages of deletionists who nominate multiple worthy articles and on some days cast upwards of 50 deletion votes , none of which are for obvious deletion candidates such as attack pages or hoaxes? ] (]) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Uncle G, there has been an active effort at disruption and harrassment on this page, most recently spearheaded by A Man In Black. It is really easy to come here and post a contuation of your "we are all wikipedians" unifying theme, ''(I am surprised you didn't bring up the idealistic garden analogy again)'' which completely carpets over the realities of different view points, and the harrassment that this project endured. I would post all the edit diffs and tactics, particuarly be A Man In Black, but that wouldn't change your mind one bit, would it?
	::My concern of who is or is not a member is secondary. Again, it is really tiring to hear what this project is and is not about by editors whose edit hisitories are clearly contradictory to this articles mission and editors who attempt to subvert everything ARS attempts to do (which all other wikiprojects actively do). You even went so far as saying there is a "pervertion" here. I think what is "perverse" and troubling ironic, is that the co-architect of many of the notabilty guidelines, which is the number one reason given for most of the deletions, is advising ARS on how ARS should or should not act.
	::Uncle G, Masem, and PhilKnight, don't address my original statment, how all of the other wikiprojects have not had to endure the fierce scrutiny that ARS has, for actions that are exactly the same.
	::150+ times wikiprojects have mentioned DRVs. 20+ examples are above, and yet there is a firestorm when one DRV is posted here. Unfortunately, that is the history of the project, everything that ARS members attempt to do, there is a firestorm of criticism, mostly from editors whose edit history tends to be contrary to the fundamental ideals of the project. That is why I am inviting editors to go to ], which has the AFD tags, etc.
	::But the beahvior hisotry of many of these editors, particularly AMIB, is an incredibly confrontational one, so I know this will be ignored. ] (]) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::: Good points about the other wikiprojects ikip, we dont seem to have a level playing field here! ] (]) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::: No one is being confrontational in this section. They are only saying "here is a problem which has been identified, the ARS can solve it themselves and immediately remove the source of most of the criticism of the project." Of course those editors involved are free to carry on spamming AfD with spurious Keep votes, but at least no-one will be able to turn round and say that they're doing it under the banner of the ARS. ] would be a good place to start - 11 AfD Keep votes in the last few weeks, and every single one either just "Keep", "Strong Keep", or "Keep per (other editor)". If I was closing AfD I'd discount every single one of those, so what's the point? The focus should be on improving articles, not deletion votes. In fact, in a perfect world, the only comment that an ARS member should ever have to add to a deletion discussion is "Look, I've improved this article so that it now meets our policies, what does everyone think of it now?". <b>]</b> 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Thanks Feyd. it is amazing how editors who you would think are strongly opposed to the project, have come here in droves and are now so concerned about ARS. The irony. ] (]) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::You're welcome ikip. Black kite, the point is that the good work others have done in improving an article will likely be wasted if the consensus at an Afd still seems to be for deletion. And the editor you've picked out has made a number of good edits to several of the articles being edited. ] (]) 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::::: Consensus at an AfD rarely lies with deletion if the article has been improved to an appropriate level. Furthermore, ''consensus does not change by people spamming "keep" on AfDs''. It is at best pointless and at work extremely disruptive. ] - ] 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Note, I am notifying the editor that he is mentioned here. ] (]) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I would hope by that logic you would discount all the delete ] as well by those who aren't interested in improving the articles. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Yes, in most cases I'd similarly discount PERNOM as well, just as I would any !vote that was just "Delete". <b>]</b> 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===Refocus===
	{{hat\|Pretty much covering the basic concerns stated above, also collapsed for navigation}}
	Discussing what other projects do or don't do seems like a red herring to me. There are two points that have been made above that sum up ARS's role and how it is most effective.
	<blockquote>The only comment that an ARS member should ever have to add to a deletion discussion is "Look, I've improved this article so that it now meets our policies, what does everyone think of it now?". Black Kite 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)</blockquote>
	<blockquote>Consensus does not change by people spamming "keep" on AfDs. It is at best pointless and at work extremely disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)</blockquote>
	When I see people editing in the main space I respect their contributions and discussion points. But when I see that most contributions are in wikipedia space or on talk pages arguing and arguing then its hard to take such editors seriously. This may not be fair but it is reality. I suspect it is also why ARS is in the spotlight again and again. ] ] 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:<small><s>This is David D.'s first edit on the project today, along with Masem, and PhilKnight. ] (]) 17:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)</s></small>
	::Thanks for the welcome. Or is it? ] ] 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::full disclosure: I've simply been watching (ARS has been on my watchlist for at least a year) - I'm unaware if anyone canvassed. --] (]) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Well is why i'm here. And a in the goals of the project. ] ] 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::And, please don't forget to mention, the recent ANI. ] (]) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::First, i appreciate that you scored out the comment above. Second, "spotlight" was a metaphor for ANI, "''recent interest''" was a nod to ANI too and if that was too cryptic for you, if you look at the you'll see I am quite explicit. ] ] 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:OK, again that is generally disparaging towards hundreds of editors. There may be good reasons for a continual spotlight but they also may indicate an over-vigilance. I do appreaciate you weeding through this to find some relevant posts as that can help lead language for why !empty votes are ... empty. Personally I have 3,000+ items, exncluding talkpages, on my watchlist and I've never been caught up. Sometimes I'm inspired to do major work, other times I look to see if sourcing is available etc. and I post my results. It may make sense to actually employ a few bots to suss out which folks are making hollow votes - in ''any'' direction and give them a friendly note that they are seemingly wasting their energy and possibly doing more harm than good. If done neutrally I would support this effort and have no problem using formerly rescue-tagged AFDs toward that effort. ] 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Red herring: "Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue."
	::Um, the original issue is allegations of canvassing.
	::Again, several editors whose edit history is contradictory to the very ideals of this project, are dictating what ARS should be.
	::<s>I am also troubled at how suddenly so many editors who have been so critical of this project, ironically come here and preach against canvassing. There are even 3 editors whose views match those critical of the project, who suddenly appeared, and edited for the first time today. </s> ''These ] canvas arguments rarely go anywhere. I apologize to Phil, Masem and David D.''
	::ARS is no different than the other wikiprojects, except our scope is bigger and we have been harrassed more.
	::'''I applaud A Nobody for posting articles with problems below, and I encourage all editors to post any problems they have,''' as hundreds of other wikiprojects do. ] (]) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I'm not critical of the project, far from it. That you think that says more about you than me. ] ]
	:I encourage AMIB and Fram and others who have some doubts about the intent of the project to continue posting here. All WP projects are open. When i see a project where i have by doubts, I simply join it and hope to possibly influence and if not keep watch. I've helped turn around some deletion-oriented projects, and also some projects trying too hard to keep indefensible articles. I also encourage anyone voting blindingly to stop doing so. Whatever one wants to do, it is much more effective to give a reason in one's own words. ''']''' (]) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I don't have any doubts about the intent of the project, or its good work. I have doubts about misuse of its tools, mostly well-meaning but sometimes not. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	=== A new question ===
	{{hat\|Some examples for clarity and more discussion that canvassing is bad; also collapsed for navigation.}}
	Is it, fundamentally, a GOOD thing or a bad thing when this happens:
	:1. Someone sees an article at AfD, and tags it for rescue.
	:2. Someone (maybe someone else, maybe the same someone) makes some improvements to the article.
	:3. Several ARS members, going through the category, show up and !vote "keep per improvements"
	Good, bad, or depends? ] (]) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Good, because 1) regarding point 2 above, it means the article is improved and 2) regarding point 3 above, it means editors are shown appreciation for their efforts, which is important per ]. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	::Depends entirely on the improvements, and the state of the article thereafter, innit? <font color="404040">]</font> 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Innit indeed. Some articles at Afd can be improved in ways that still do not justify their inclusion, no matter how many !keep votes they subsequently garner. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Fair enough. Slightly different take on the question:
	:::1. Someone sees an article at AfD, and tags it for rescue.
	:::2. Someone (maybe someone else, maybe the same someone) ''does a search for sources, finds some, and posts them in the AfD but does not add them to the article''.
	:::3. Several ARS members, going through the category, show up and !vote "keep per references found"
	:::Good, bad, or depends? :-) ] (]) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Maybe I'm an extreme eventualist, but to me there's not too much difference between the questions: it depends on whether or not the rescuer has shown that the topic can satisfy the criteria for inclusion, i.e. if the sources satisfy ]. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::That's my take as well, but I suspect other editors may differ, which is why I posed it. ] (]) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I've never understood why people post sources in an Afd instead of adding them to the article. Mention that you have edited the article, yes, but stick the sources where they belong. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I do it because sources don't need to be ''in'' the article to affect the AfD, they just need to be shown to exist, and often because I have time to post a few searches (which should have been done by the nom per ]), but not the time to integrate and cite them. ] (]) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I see your point when time is tight (either for you or the Afd). But given that you have to evaluate the sources and check that they support the text etc, surely sticking them in as a standard <code><nowiki><ref>newsourcehere</ref></nowiki></code> would be better than including them in a post on a discussion page? You can always reformat the cite if and when the article survives. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	: #3 is a bad thing full stop. #3 is the whole problem here. #3 is historically accompanied with additional fallout not limited to badgering, persistent personal attacks, and cross-wiki retribution (including the perennial presence of the group-vote at RfA, which unlike AfD ''is'' largely based on vote-counting). Were #3 to stop, nobody would have any problem with this project whatsoever. This has been made abundantly clear almost every time the problem with ARS is brought up. Certain individuals have made a career out of obfuscating this by implying that #3 is somehow inseparable from #1 and #2. ] - ] 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:: Not clear which 1.2.3. scenario you're referring to: the first (article improved), the second (AfD updated), or both (i.e. any vote claiming the article's been improved). Surely you can't be saying that improving an article while it's in AfD is wrong? Have I missed the point here? ] (]) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I think what Thumperward is suggesting is that editors patrolling the use of the {{tl\|rescue}} tag should stick to improving articles tagged as needing rescue and avoid the associated deletion discussions. <font color="404040">]</font> 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::They should do both, i.e. improve the articles and discuss the improvements. I would rather hear from those actually willing to look for sources and add them if possible then those who have no interest at all, which is unfortuantely what we frequently run into. They need to comment as well, because a good deal of editors never return to the discussions and so we can have an improved article deleted if it was improved half way through a discussion and no one adequately acknowledges the improvements. Plus, it is necessary to counterbalance some of the copy and paste "delete per noms" we get. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::: It should ''never'' be "necessary to counterbalance" opposing copy-pastes by copy-pasting. This behaviour is precisely what originally got you into trouble. Consensus is not a head count. Fighting fire with fire harms the whole project. ] - ] 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::It shouldn't. We shouldn't have indiscriminate copy and paste "per noms". If anything, it should be required that those who comment in AfDs must demonstrate evidence of having looked for sources and attempted to improve the article prior to commenting. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::(ec) This is the feedback I was suspecting it might show up. I think it highlights an important cultural/expectation disconnect. If ARS is a place where the first ARS member to see a particular tag'ed article tends to show up and add sources, AND where other editors who show up at a place where sources have been recently added tend to !vote "keep per (sources\|improvements)" then it has both a first and second order effect. It's not that ARS is a place to canvass, made up of rabid inclusionists, or anything of the sort. What really happens is that the efforts of one ARS member expand geometrically as the rest of the ARS'ers who swing by note the improvements and !vote accordinlgy. ARS tends to be an improvement multiplier, because it's much less likely for anyone to pile on when an ARS'er posts a "'''delete'''-did extensive searches, nothing found" comment. ] (]) 23:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::: I'm saying that part 3 is entirely unneeded. Once the deletionist bogeyman strawman is eliminated, it becomes apparent that in the week-long process by which an AfD is run that if the article is improved significantly in that time then it will be kept whether there are any "keep per improvement" comments from ARS or not. Ideally, ARS should be so divorced from AfD that its members are ''actively discouraged from participating in AfDs'' in that their work should be to improve the articles to the point where ''others'' judge them to have qualified for inclusion. ] - ] 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::: The problem is we typically have in AfDs accounts that are not exactly qualified to judge, i.e. they come in with an inherent bias wanting to delete regardless of improvement or lacking real knowledge of the subject anyway. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::::: I first encountered you when, after several months of discussion on ], a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable. You systemically disrupted those AfDs to the effect that they took several times longer than necessary, despite having zero prior contact with the subject matter, mostly with copy-paste keeps due to your ideological bent. I'm trying to have a grown-up argument as to the future direction of ARS. I would ask that you refrain from any further implication as regarding the shade of the kettle. ] - ] 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::Many of the 40 K articles were nominated by someone who was initially named "KillerOfCruft" of all things and who is now blocked. Hardly, an unbiased expert. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::: An expert nonetheless, given my interactions with him. As was pointed out when you copy-pasted your opposal to those noms based on the identity of the editor in question, the nominations themselves were not in bad faith. Your opposes were most certainly less well founded. You'd be wise not to continue this line of reasoning. ] - ] 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::::In those discussions, I made many different arguments and posts and given the motivations of the now blocked account, it was pretty clear that that they were disruptive nominations, which is why after all they were not unanimous deletes by any stretch of the imagination. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::: So turn it round the other way. I can improve an article that's going to be deleted (e.g. ]) and ARS members can !vote keep because I'm not a member of ARS and the article never had a rescue tag. Right now, if I improve an article after ARS has tagged it, my contribution is seen as less valuable, and if a self-confessed ARS member improves an article, that would be basically the kiss of death, right? So the ARS should restrict itself to being an administrative function with two or three members who list articles in need of urgent attention and maybe lead some big strategic arguments, but actual improvements and AfD comments should be made by people who don't identify themselves as ARS members and won't vote in a caucus at RfAs. That could work. Is it what Thumperward wants? ] (]) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::: I have no idea what you mean by the "kiss of death" comment. For the rest, if an article has already been improved to the point where the hypothetical average editor would deem it worth keeping then there is ''nothing for ARS to do''.
	::::::: Another possible permutation of your comment (bear in mind that I really don't know what you're getting at) is that ''in theory'' the current partisan inclusionists whose participation in ARS is what brings the heat on it could ''not'' join ARS and continue to participate in AfDs freely. However, this was basically the status quo prior to said editors having latched onto ARS in the first place. Should this happen then ''great'' - ARS would be a non-partisan place for editors to improve articles, while you'd have various non-affiliated editors hassling people at AfD. This moves the heat back off of ARS. I'd be very happy for that. ] - ] 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::: That's the dimension I had in mind: I was thinking that "partisan" !votes could be the kiss of death at an AfD, but ARS could remain partisan if the actual article improvers weren't members, and I think you are saying that ARS would work better if partisan editors weren't affiliated with it. So basically we agree, though we might need to firm up a few details about horses and stable doors.... ] (]) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::: I'm now convinced that the best way to make the distinction clear is for ARS to divorce itself entirely from actual deletion discussions, dedicating itself entirely to the process of article improvement. That would solve the problem above, as it would drive the serial keepers out of the project. ] - ] 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Three words: "Not gonna happen" If I'm improving an article, I'm going to say as much in the AfD. If I see an article that's been improved by one of my peers, I'm going to evaluate its current state and documented sourcing and !vote appropriately. Take a gander at what I did to ] (). I'm not giving up that kind of accomplishment, where the AfD nominator congratulates me on the work I've done. I look at your objections to how things are executed and find they're really insignificant and petty compared to saving something like that. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and it turns out the parts I seem to be best at are finding stuff in the trash and fixing it, and all the objections in the world can't tarnish the accomplishments of the ARS members who follow the same path. ] (]) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::: What has your contribution to the AfD done to save the article? Even if you hadn't commented on the AfD others would have noticed your rescue work and opined to keep. Is that AfD indicative of the kind of problematic AfD participation which draws all the heat on ARS? Absolutely not. So why insist that the two are inextricably linked? Fixing ARS means divorcing the good stuff (article rescue) from the bad stuff (attempted vote-stacking, persecution of opponents, eternal projectspace drama). ] - ] 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: The first thing it did is gave notice: 1) I believe in it, 2) I've found something so far, and 3) I'm working on it. If you believe that a bunch of keep !votes would have magically materialized without my resetting the tone of the AfD, you have a very different view of AfD than I do. I've made improvements to an article late in the AfD process, only to see them ignored or discounted by closing admins who counted noses. Votestacking can be ignored if it's inappropriate, and harassment should be punished on an individual basis. Project drama... seems to me an invention of those who don't like the ARS. None are a compelling reason to hinder the call to improve articles facing deletion in any way. ] (]) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::::::: I can only say that I categorically disagree that (a) it is truly necessary to have rescuing editors post "keep per my improvements" comments on AfDs to make others take notice; (b) the solution to the long-term problem of disruptive projectspace contributions is to either ignore it or to punish individuals (especially because the issue is ''not'' so much individual contributions, but the shepherding of users to act in the certain way ''en masse''); and (c) that the long-term harrassment and drama is "an invention of those who don't like the ARS". I don't think we're likely to see any common ground on those issues, but I've said my piece. ] - ] 09:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::Above you comment on a "deletionist bogeyman strawman" and yet here talk of "partisan inclusionists", a strawman in its own right. The best outcome is that all of us focus on improving articles. These accusations have no basis in a constructive discussion. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::: The term "partisan inclusionist" is being used above as a placeholder for any number of existing editors who act like this already; it is not an artificial construction in the way that the deletionist bogeyman (to wit: an editor who derives joy from deleting good articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia) is frequently used around here. ] - ] 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	I'm sorry Thumperard, you worked closely with an editor called "KillerofCruft"? ]: "cruft, is a pejorative, which can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." How can you reconcile your claim of wanting to help Article '''Rescue''' Squadron on the one hand, and working closely with an editor who, by his very name had a purpose of '''killing articles'''?

	More worryingly, you are defending an indefinetly banned user? ] (]) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	: Cruft is by definition a bad thing; the various attempted MfDs to eliminate the word from WP failed because outwith a core group of inclusionists it's not held to be a dirty word. Fredrick Day (for it is he) was indef blocked for a past history of disruptive editing (which I've never condoned) and subsequent socking (which I publicly tried very hard to dissuade him from). He was not blocked for proposing various AfDs in good faith, and those AfDs were imminent anyway (I did a few myself), so this attempt at guilt by association is rather weak. It's curious that you would continually refer to Fredrick Day by the short-lived "killerofcruft" moniker when you yourself changed your name from ] from what I can surmise is precisely the same attempt not to have your edits tainted by your user name. ] - ] 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::No ones “tainted” by being labelled an inclusionist! It’s a preference that indicates a generous nature. ] (]) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:Jclemens, yes voting keep is generally a good thing once the articles been sufficiently improved . In an ideal world editors would amend their delete votes to keep after the improvement, but we don’t live in an ideal world, IME of AfD less than one in four change their vote post improvement. Without members of the ARS voting for keep, the consensus would often still appear to be for deletion, articles would be lost, those who’d improved them might be demoralised, and there would be a huge net to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:: Are you aware that consensus has nothing whatsoever to do with head-counting, and that AfD is not a vote? ] - ] 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Ive been advised of the relevant guideline. The reality is there seems a strong correlation between the balance of opinion expressed, as per head count, and the decision of the closing admin. There are exceptions , but usually only when theres an obvious good reason. ] (]) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Any value in a headcount disappears completely when campaigning for votes is going on. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 11:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::AMIB, how to reconcile your "campaigning" complaint with this:
	::::::"WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable.""
	:::::Sounds like the definition of "campaigning" to me. I haven't had time to go through your WP:VG contributions, but I am willing to bet that you have talked at length about deleting articles, or as you call it "campaigning" and "canvassing". I have already seen examples of other editors here bringing up and discussing AfDs actively in their projects. ] (]) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Campaigning is calling for the support of like-minded editors to back you up. Rallying supporters subverts the ability to count heads in a close. (And, you know, gogo Gadget baseless sweeping accusations.) And weren't you disengaging from me not 12 hours ago? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Are you are talking about ]? -- slow down AMIB, you have so many edit wars going on, you can't keep the participants straight :) ] (]) 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::No. I was talking about the disruptive effect that campaigning has on deletion discussions. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	==== break for clarity ====
	{{hat\|Another example}}
	Going back to the original question, an AfD I put up recently was ]. Basically, the article was a mess and I did some looking around and could only find online fansites that talked about the film, so I nominated. Michael Schmidt did some great work cleaning it up, but I still wasn't sure that it was actually notable, because the sources were still only these fansites. I expressed this on the page, but a few other contributors had voted keep, and the admin closed it as keep. Fair enough, I thought. However, after reading through this discussion, I realise that all the Keep votes bar one were from ARS members.
	What are my thoughts on this? To be honest, it makes me feel a bit uneasy. I certainly think that when voting keep, it should be based on policy, not a comment like "'''Keep''' as now improved". Just because an article has been improved does not make it notable. Likewise people sticking an article on AfD should be checking to see whether there are sources to establish notability, whether or not the article is in a bit of a state. ] (]) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	=== South Park experts===
	{{hat\|And more, also collapsed}}
	The bottom line is that this project is doing everything that every other wikiproject does, except that ARS editors are harassed for doing it. To get back to the original discussion:

	Thumperward wrote above:
	:''Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it. Come to WP:FOOTY some time: almost anything posted as an AfD notice there is eventually deleted. Even on projects where more members are of the inclusionist bent (WP:DND comes to mind), deletion discussions are posted there to alert experts on the subject matter...''

	;No bar to entry, anyone can join

	RE: "because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter"

	The key word here is "theoretically". I just helped create wikiproject South Park, and wikiproject bilateral relations, I assure you I am an expert in neither. I never join or create wikiprojects first and foremost because I have '''knowledge of the subject''', it is because I have an '''interest in the subject'''. The two are not necessarily synonymous. I helped create bilateral relations, and I have no knowledge of this subject. '''Can wikiproject bilateral relations and wikiproject South Park now post DRV and delete discussions, as all other hundreds projects do?'''

	Thumperward, your argument would be more convincing if there was some bar to joining and creating these organizations, but wikiprojects are open to everyone, that means anyone can join, and there is no bar to joining.

	;We can do it, and hundreds of other projects can do it, but you can't
	I find it ironic that you openly admit that you and your fellow 18 Warhammer wikiproject editors actively put articles up for deletion on your project, and yet you feel that ARS cannot post those exact same AFDs here. So Thumperward has his own "canvassing" group, of 18 members, which work together to delete articles, but ARS, with 244 members, cannot do the exact same thing.

	;Simpsons "experts"

	RE: "], a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable."

	Are you telling me that there are South Park and Simpsons experts? Is there even such a thing as a "Simpsons" expert? You mention above you are an expert on Warhammer, how can Simpsons and South Park wikiproject editors become experts like you?

	I have seen many of these discussions on wikiprojects, I wouldn't call most of these editors "subject experts" by any leap of the imagination, these are '''hobbyist,''' who share a common interest. I think you are looking for the word "hobbyist". Just like the editors here. ARS has over 200 members, with varying backgrounds and views. We might even have had an "Warhammer expert" here, who has attempted to fix an article which you tried to delete.

	Is this acurate?:
	{\| class="navbox" style="margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em" cellpadding=5
	!class="navbox-abovebelow"\|Warhammer Wikiproject
	!class="navbox-abovebelow"\|Project bilateral relations
	!class="navbox-abovebelow"\|ARS
	\|-
	\|"Experts" in narrow fields
	\|No experts
	\|"Experts" in diverse fields
	\|-
	\|18 members
	\|18 members
	\|244 members
	\|-
	\|(est.) 12 February 2006
	\|(est.) 18 April 2009
	\|(est.) 13 July 2007
	\|-
	\|Can post DRVs, AfDs, editor notification
	\|Can post DRVs, AfDs, editor notification
	! Cannot post DRVs, AfDs, editor notification
	\|-
	\|}

	So to reiterate my point. ARS is no different from WP:40K, except our scope is larger and we are harassed by editors, many who actively edit in wikiprojects that advertise AfDs, advertise DRVs, and editor notification, but who feel ARS should not do the same.

	ARS can and will do all the things that these hundreds of wikiprojects already do. ] (]) 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::::::Anyone whose intentions are primarily to !vote (either way) on AfDs does now just the same as from before this project: they hang around AfD. This project is intended to counter the problem imposed by the short finite length of AfDs--the 5 or 7 day deadline for improving articles. This can only be countered by focusing effort of doing that. I note the response of the people originally !voting for deletion when that happens:the ones in good faith are glad to see the articles improved, and change their !vote. The others typically deny the existence of any improvements using various technical objections to the sources provided, and thus demonstrate their lack of interest in improving the encyclopedia in any positive sense. If there is a net increase in keeps it is presumably due to this. There's of course another possibility-- thee may be among the thousands of Misplaced Pages editors who aren't active in these process a very considerable number who have broad views on article inclusion, possibly a much higher number than feel the opposite. If an increased number of ordinary editors pay attention to these issues, the actual consensus may be rather different from what some people assume it is. ''']''' (]) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	* I think there's a legitimate problem when a project has a predetermined point of view. Unfortunately, there was a recent recruiting drive for ARS, where users were selectively notified based on their use of certain userboxes and user categories that favor inclusion. ARS used to be a nonideological group dedicated to article improvement. Now, because of this recent recruiting drive, there is a systemic bias among ARS that favors inclusion. If ARS members are not being linked to discussions that are about inclusion, that's fine: so if they're actually improving articles, they're okay. But when they're called upon to participate in policy discussions that are directly related to inclusion, or discussions are "'''include''' versus '''delete'''", we're dealing with a legitimate systemic problem. We're talking about votestacking: selectively notifying a group of editors because you feel they have a predetermined point of view.
	* My question to you is if it would be okay for someone to aggressively recruit people with userboxes and user categories favorable to deletion, accumulate them at one venue/project/taskforce, and then post links to policy and AFD discussions from that venue. ] (]) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I'd love there to be such a project. Better people should do so openly. I'll join and make some constructive comments once a day or so about where they should and should not focus their energy. They already have a tag for articles, in fact, it's the afd notification. But yes, I can see things getting sufficiently polarized that we might need some other way of deciding than the present system. The only correlate in the real world to an afd with voluntary jurors choosing what cases they want to judge, is <s>a lynch mob</s>'' ].'' ''']''' (]) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: AMIB asked me to withdraw a word I used above, I hope he finds my replacement (in italics) preferable
	::: ... really? Not only do you think it would be 100% okay to recruit people with a particular view on inclusion to a single task force, and then post links to deletion/inclusion policy discussions and AFDs... but you'd actually love it, even encourage more of it? ] (]) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::You're insisting that you're not a WikiProject, and you don't act like one (normal WikiProjects post tags on talk pages, for example), but you want to take all the positive benefits of it and none of the restrictions. No, it doesn't work that way. <small>All "you"s in the previous statement are plural and refer to the ARS as a whole.</small> ] (]) 13:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Randomran, there is such a project: ] they have there own <nowiki>{{rescue}}</nowiki> tag, etc, they even have "deletion" in the title.
	:::::RE: "ARS used to be a nonideological group dedicated to article improvement"
	this is patently absurd, and shows a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the history of this project. ARS has been harrassed long before any drive for new members happened (which, by the way, was completely within wikipedia rules, and is a regular part of all wikiprojects, there are over 269 invitation templates). The three MfD for deletion happened years ago. Look through the 30+ pages of AfDs, it is full of editors who tend to support deletion and merging condeming this project.
	:::::RE: "If ARS members called upon to participate in policy discussions that are directly related to inclusion, or discussions are "'''include''' versus '''delete'''", we're dealing with a legitimate systemic problem."
	:::::You just described every wikiproject. But for some reason, outsiders are demading that ARS be different. Two or three editors said that some of the wikiprojects tended to slant towards deletion or inclusion, where is your criticism of these groups, who actively "canvas", post AfDs, post DRVs?
	:::::Enough, lets call a spade a spade: hypocricy. There is such a pattern of hypocricy here. The same editors who actively discuss the fate of AFDs and DRVs in their little projects, with like minded editors, are condemning ARS for doing the same thing.
	:::::ARS will continue to enjoy the same priveleges of all projects. ] (]) 15:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::What qualifies you to make such pronouncements? You opened this discussion, and have now announced that it's over, with the conclusions being exactly identical to the ones you made in the first post. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I maybe wrong, but I think I have a have just a little bit more credibility than , and "Cruftkiller" defender does to say what I think is best for the project. ] (]) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Of course you have more credibility to "''say what '''you''' think is best for the project''". You are in fact the '''only''' one qualified to do so. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::You've said what you think is best for the project. Repeatedly and at length, with two section headers in this discussion alone devoted to what you think is best for the project. I believe we're drowning in what you think is best for the project.
	:::::::::Now, what qualifies you to announce that what you think is best for the project is what will happen from here on, as you just did? From what authority do you draw your conclusion that "ARS will continue to" do anything? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Again, I have much more credibility to say what ARS can and can't do. ] (]) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Why? Tell me why ''you'' have credibility, not why random other people don't. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Why, why are you involved in this wikiproject? Two 3rrs in the past couple of days here, massive edit warring even now on this and other pages, is this the behavior of an admin? ] (]) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: That isn't an answer to my question. Where's your credibility? From what authority do you make pronouncements like "ARS will continue to enjoy the same priveleges of all projects"? Ikip, you're not an article rescuer. What are you doing here? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I could never give you an answer to your satification, I have had enough of the continued baiting and harrassment AMIB. This is not the behavior of an admin. ] (]) 16:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::I'm not getting an answer because there isn't one. Ikip, you're a bad example and an agitator here, and shame on me and everyone for being agitated, but it's time to stop. Keep arguing at AFD, keep improving articles, keep doing whatever else you want, but stop posting on this page, as threads like this are not productive.
	::::::::::::::::My hands are not clean, but you started this thread to suggest that people leave this project alone. I propose you leave this project alone, so that everyone who is here to moderate or oppose your disruption can also leave it alone. I'm increasingly starting to realize I've fallen into the trap of ascribing to Banjeboi in particular and the project in general the bad faith I have repeatedly seen exhibited by you alone (and for that I am sorry). - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::: LOL!! I've noticed you've a good sense of humour MIB and you've outdone yourself here. As if you can waltz into a project and suggest one of its leading members departs! I can see how it might suit deletionists for us to loose ikip , but its not going to happen. Ikip, it may be an option to stay away from the page for a day or two and let them talk themselves out. No matter what they say or how vehement they are about it I doubt many squad members will let their conduct be influenced by these characters. ] (]) 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::Despite him inviting you here, he's not a leading member. DGG and Banjeboi and A Nobody are leading members. Ikip is coopting this project in order to have a favorable venue to recruit support for disputes. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	* I'm shocked that people think it's 100% okay to recruit people based on ideology, get them to coalesce at one venue, and then link them to discussions where they can exert ideological influence. Isn't this the very definition of votestacking? But if everyone thinks this is fine, then I guess we actively like a ] approach to discussion? ] (]) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	**Perhaps not you or I, but seriously now, and I mean this ''not'' sarcastically. I truly am beginning to get the impression that some do indeed actually prefer a "battleground" atmosphere to actually helping to improve article. There's a point of not taking ] to being naive, and given what we know about human nature, not everyone can mean well. So, what is key is to avoid getting dragged into these discussions, taking the high ground, and improving articles. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	*** There's won't be a highground without accountability. If we permit one editor to selectively recruit based on inclusion philosophy, and subsequently link to numerous discussion pages, then we're going to have a lot more discussions and a lot less article improvement. Not just because they'll start doing it, but because other people with other inlucion philosophies will too. But if we say that it's unacceptable to organize an entire inclusion-philosophy -- either inclusionist or deletionist -- at a Misplaced Pages space and link to talk page discussions, then we'll spend a lot less time at those respective talk pages. If we stop it, we get back to articles. If we don't stop it, the discussions will continue, no matter how much we hate them. ] (]) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::That "one editor" is code for me. Randomran, I am sorry that you worked so hard on ] which would have buried or deleted hundreds of articles that contributors made, and that I came along and posted a neutral message on a couple of hundred fiction article talk pages, which may have been part of the reason that ] failed for a third time (you can't hold me responsible for the failure of the first two, and I think three makes a trend). I am sorry that two admins said the template was okay to post before hand, and that '''I followed all the rules'''. I am sorry that sanctions were not leeved against me when an editor posted a complaint about this on ANI.
	:::::No one has ever argued that I didn't follow the rules. An admin recently had his block reversed because I allegedy:
	:::::# "push the boundaries of WP:CANVASS",
	:::::#"various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS",
	:::::#"Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING...following only the letter of the rules"
	:::::#"continues to walk the line any way he can"
	:::::IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT RULES OF CANVAS CHANGE THEM. But don't punish or complain about editors who follow the rules.
	:::::Again, Randomran is here complaining about ARS following the rules, doing something that all the wikiprojects do themselves with no harrassment what-so-ever.
	:::::] (]) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Aside from these tension raising discussions, I don't see any evidence than anything detrimental to the project actually resulted. If you're referring to Ikip, then even for what he was blocked, the alleged canvassing, didn't seem to actually result in anyone showing up at the AfD and if he isn't doing anything any more, then it is beating a dead horse. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	* Ikip, you need to calm down and ]. I'm here to provide an outside opinion that's neither inclusionist or deletionis, and discuss a behavioral issue. I'm not here to be "vindictive", and I resent that you're trying to make this about inclusion philosophy when this is about behavior. DGG and ikip both think it's okay to recruit in this way, me and A Nobody don't think it's okay, but we need to get away from the usual suspects and ask independent Wikipedians if this behavior is helpful or detrimental to consensus-building. ] (]) 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I think it's ''permissible'' to recruit in this way, but I do not think it desirable. Recruitment will come naturally from seeing the work. The project should focus on the original goal (I was the 8th person to join, about 2 years ago) : rescuing a few articles at a time, choosing carefully on the basin of both importance of the article and the likelihood of success. Focussing attention on articles for their possible improvement is one of the beneficial side effects of the AfD process, and this project was meant to facilitate that part. The fact that it can improve articles will encourage others to try also. Perhaps it will even encourage those nominating articles to search first, to avoid possible embarrassment. ''']''' (]) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::: I think that if the project were to focus on its original goal we'd have all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. I'd hope that everyone would be able to drop it. But the problem is that the cat is out of the bag, with a highly discriminatory inclusionist-based recruitment drive in February, followed by a lot of links to miscellaneous discussions from this page, such as policy discussions. I'm not really sure how to stop it, and put ARS back on its original footing. ] (]) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Randomran, as I have been reminded up above, this is not the forum to talk about behavioral issues, as much as I would like too myself.
	::::I never stated you were either inclusionist or deletionist, in fact, I don't think I have used that term once here in this discussion, practically everyone has, but I have avoided it.
	::::I am '''always''' a little leery of those who enter a discussion saying "I am a neutral" party, I am an outside party, here to help. I have seen too many "neutral parties" willing to jump in at ANI and "help" who are incredible enamoured to one side.
	::::In this case, we had a history together on ] so I know your stance Randomran. I have been in a lot of AFDs were editors quoted ] to get an article deleted. So I apologize for my extreme skeptisism.
	::::Fritzpoll, regardless of his views, pulls off the "helpful outsider" much better, because his stance, at least to me, is an unknown.
	::::Randomran, the concerned outsider, attempting to dictate what ARS should and should not do, and always, always, saying he only has the best interest of ARS in mind. How many times have I heard this in the past couple of days here? From editors, sometimes, whose entire editing career has been to delete articles. It rings hollow.
	::::The reality, regardless of feel good we are all "wikipedians" speeches is that there is ] sides on wikipedia, and pretty much everyone leans one way or another. Even you, Randomran, lean one way, you heavily promoted and advocated for FICT, which would have deleted and merged thousands of articles. ] (]) 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::: I don't appreciate the accusations of bad faith. WP:FICT wasn't my proposal and does not represent my leanings. If I pushed hard for it, it was only because I wanted to see something that would keep more articles than the current ], which is a stricter standard than WP:FICT that is being used to delete articles every day.
	::::: Misplaced Pages works on consensus, and I find it ironic that you're attacking me for dictating when you're ignoring all other input and appointing yourself the unilateral decision maker of what ARS can and cannot do. I'm only pointing out there's a legitimate issue, and yes I have an opinion on it. But we're not going to resolve this until a neutral group of Wikipedians can decide whether this is appropriate behavior. You're 100% that this is not the time of the place. If I have a role to play, it's in pointing out that there are ways of obtaining neutral feedback, and we should work on that, so we can resolve this once and for all. One side dictating to the other is not going to work. ] (]) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Motion to close and archive this 100k thread===
	Hopefully everyone feels they've been able to express their frustrations and now we can move on towards solutions that fit in with community protocols. Personally I'm willing to work on solutions that focus on civilly and neutrally addressing concerns raised. All the discussion that centers on canvassing and inclusionism vs deletionism should likely be put on hold until some constructive solutions ''appropriate for any Wikiproject'' are thoughtfully considered. We aren't here to battle but to collaborate and work with one another to improve the encyclopedia. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
	*'''Support as nom'''. As long as we are making forward movement we can always refer back for cognitive talking points. ] 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This isn't really the forum for this discussion anymore, because we all know how each other feels. My hope is still that ARS will voluntarily stop (or at least scale back) its links to various talk pages, and stick with its original mandate of tagging articles at AFD and improving them. But if the drama hits a boiling point again, I think the best thing for both sides is to get an independent group of editors to look at both sides of the votestacking/campaigning issue, and make a decision that puts the issue to rest. If it comes to that, I hope that we can at least collaborate on how we present the issue before we solicit feedback. ] (]) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Right ] and let's have a calm chat ==

	Hi there - I've been watching this page actively for the past few days and I think the above discussion and the past few edits to this page indicate that tempers are flaring and that there is an ongoing dispute. Now, I am not a member of the ARS, so I apologise in advance if my intervention is unwelcome, but perhaps a ] would be useful here? <p>
	Looking back over the past few months, there seems to be a conflict based on some misunderstandings (as ever) mixed with some genuine concerns. The common thread to many of the discussions is a question: what is the ARS for? And the conflicts arise when there is an apparent difference between what the project page says and what the ARS is doing. The page says, in crude terms, that the project goes and tries to source and cleanup articles that are at AfD in an effort to rescue useful content. I think it would be impossible for any editor to argue that rescuing useful, good content is a bad thing (although we may ''all'' vary in our definition of "good" and "useful").<p>
	In recent times, the project has expanded with proposals for handling all XfDs, being actively involved as a group in examining policy/guideline alterations that affect arguments at XfD, etc. This is where a lot of conflict lies, because it doesn't coincide with the stated goals of the ARS.<p>
	I think there is a resolution in two parts:
	# Realisation, acceptance and acknowledgement ''on both sides'' that the ARS is a WikiProject working in a sensitive area working in a position mandated by, and for the benefit of, the community at large (just like ''any'' WikiProject)
	# A community-wide RfC on the scope of the ARS. That is an RfC, not a binding poll, so don't worry about votestacking, or anything. Have an RfC outlining what the ARS should do in addition to its original aim of cleaning up articles that are at AfD.

	By having an RfC for a good few weeks and getting a neutral administrator (I can give you some names of very good admins to do this for you) to evaluate the ] you get a series of codified aims and a clear scope. And then all the subsequent disputes are moot provided you stick to that scope, because the ARS would have a mandate from the community that you can always point to. It limits the disruption, and you guys can get back to working on the articles that require cleanup rather than having to bicker here.<p>
	Now, I obviously think that this is a good way forward - what is happening now, where there is an endless tug of war, where the only solutions to the dispute being put forward are topic bans, blocks and the like, is '''not''' sustainable. I am willing to help set up an RfC with you if I am wanted (not essential) - make sure it is neutrally worded so there can be no accusations of bias. In turn, both sides may have to accept that the community wants/doesn't want things you don't agree with. But at the end of the day, we all come to Misplaced Pages to make a good encyclopedia, and we can't do that without resolving disputes like this amicably. Please give it some thought. Best wishes, ] (]) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Sounds like a plan, as long as other ARS members agree. Thanks for the thoughtful, neautral and polite intervention. ] (]) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:I am working on a straw poll, for all members. ] (]) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I know, Ikip. I can see it on your talk page. But the ARS deciding what the ARS should do will not end the disputes and the arguments from those outside who have concerns about its scope. I am also concerned that a poll about the ARS is principally about removing one of its critics, but that is a matter that can be discussed elsewhere. What I am proposing is a way by which you can stop all of the stuff that has been going on. ] (]) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	Wouldn't an easier resolution for this be to remove the material that doesn't involve improving articles up for deletion? It seems like keeping it there would involve opening a big can of drama, and it's rather irrelevant to the purpose of this anyway. ] (]) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:That is an issue of scope, and part of the ongoing dispute. I think that it needs a wider input - if the community agrees with the scope you propose, then noone can claim it is a case of personal bias. And vice versa, of course ] (]) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Me doing that in the first place started all of this. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::<s>:Honestly, I think who should decided what is or is not in this project should be the members of this project, '''especially''' when what ARS is going is no different from any other project.
	:::In addition, yesterday a huge number of editors spontaneously appeared on this project who had rarely participated in ARS, and whose edit histories show they are extremely opposed to the goals of this project. Editors like should not decide the fate and future of this project. This is a bad idea. ] (]) 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
	::::Well, it's an awkward one, I admit. :) A regular WikiProject interacts with a small range of articles, but even they are answerable to the community, and there are often RfCs about their guidelines or specific points. WikiProjects are owned by the community at large not their members (something they occasionally have to be reminded of! :) ), and indeed I have seen several ARS members remind critics of the "mandate" that the squadron have from the community - with community support of the expansion of scope, there can be no accusations of overextension for what is undoubtedly a very useful project. ] (]) 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::To respond to your addition: Yes, which is why you have an RfC closed by a neutral administrator or bureaucrat, rather than a poll that could be stacked by those with no reasonable arguments. I hope you weren't associating me with any of your latter remarks? ] (]) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::<s> "but even they are answerable to the community"
	::::::This sounds incresingly like this is a carrot and stick offer.
	::::::Is there any precendence for this? A wikiproject being dictated on what they can and cannot do by editors who are dramatically opposed to their very existence, asking the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy? ] (]) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
	:::::::I'm not sure carrots and sticks come into it. I should point out that I am not suggesting the RfC cover the old scope of the ARS, which was limited to articles at AfD - there don't seem to be any disputes over this, so it isn't an issue, and so the existence of ARS wouldn't be at issue. And if it is a community-wide RfC, a handful of extreme positions aren't going to matter. And finally, yes - WikiProjects hold RfCs all the time. Unless you think that the entire community opposes the ARS (which seems unlikely) then an RfC (as opposed to a poll) should be fine. ] (]) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::: <s>As I just barely wrote, I can't accept the idea that ARS has to ask the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy.
	:::::::: Those who delete articles are much better organized, ironically because they are involved in wikiprojects which support deletion of some topic. So I have no faith in a fair RFC. ] (]) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
	:::::::::Well, it is the next step in ], and this is a dispute. And it is no more or less than any other group on Misplaced Pages has to cope with when they want to expand their scope in a sensitive way. It doesn't bode well for WikiProjects when they don't engage with the community at large over their activities and instead rely on their own membership for the rules. As a pertinent example,] springs to mind. A wide scope project, eliminated because it became too isolated from the rest of Misplaced Pages. I think you don't have a lot of faith in the community, and you need to, because collaboration is what has made Misplaced Pages great ] (]) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::<s>No its not. Editor assistance, Third opinion. Neither have been tried. Again, ARS is simply wanting the same rights and priveleges that other wikiprojects enjoy. ] (]) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
	::::::::::::And you shall have them! :) Editor assistance is unlikely to be productive in this type of dispute, and you ahve received third opinions to no avail, although admittedly not through a formal process. RfC is the next step - and to have one is not to treat ARS any differently than any other group on Misplaced Pages, nor is there a stigma associated with requesting external comment. ] (]) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::You've linked that essay here three times, which is three more times than I've linked it anywhere. I'm not happy with it yet. If you have a problem with it, feel free to edit it or take it to MFD, but knock off the red herring bullshit. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Let's try to avoid this argument in this section, please. I know it's frustrating, but if we can settle the content issues, you guys need never feel you have to interact again. Happy days, eh? ] (]) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry if you are embarrassed by it. ] (]) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::The content issues are vastly secondary. The issue is Ikip's disruption of this project, with baiting and personal attacks and filibustering. It's a chicken and egg problem: well, nothing can be done about Ikip until this whole scope issue is resolved. But Ikip is constantly disrupting discussions of the scope, and starting new fights when the old die out. But if I walked away from this, he'd be attacking Fram or Thumperward or even Uncle G, exactly as he did above. This attitude that there is a unified enemy that must be organized against and attacked is toxic.
	::::::How do you have a civil discussion of contentious topics when even the subject of ''discussing'' the contentious topic is met with trolling? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::You are trying to bait me again AMIB. And please ], I would apprecaite you removing "trolling". "Ikip's disruption of this project" please. AMIB we both know the long laundry list of you disruption here. I can't believe you just said that, I am the one disrupting things. ] (]) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Maybe, but a behavioural problem is best handled elsewhere than a project talk page. I understand the frustrations for both of you, but we've got to get past it. ] (]) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::It's a behavioral problem that faces the RFC. We have, above, a thread that got the sort of outside input that you're talking about, and it will be disrupted, in exactly the fashion above. This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for.
	::::::::That's why it's a chicken and egg problem. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::"''This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for''", exactly right and one of the reasons i tried to hat this. Ikip can you not see the irony in your comment "''You are trying to bait me again''"? ] ] 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Everyone chill out. I think the best way to deal with it is to abstract away names, and come up with a phrasing of the question/issue that both sides thinks is fair. Then we present that issue to a group of outside editors, while you both step aside and abstain from participating -- either you or your friends -- at least for the first few days. ] (]) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:Thanks for stopping by, but ARS is not a WikiProject. I'm OK with most of the rest of the above comments, but ARS is not a WikiProject any more than 3O, MedCab, or AN are. In fact, I'd encourage ARS to jettison all trappings (membership lists, etc.) that are unnecessarily similar to a Wikiproject. ] (]) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::That's fine too. It doesn't resolve the issues of scope and clearly this is a subject of disagreement as well, which could perhaps also be included in the RfC. Let's not get bogged down in the arguments now - all you need to decide is if you want to organise an RfC yourselves to finally sort these disputes out. ] (]) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

			{{old move\|date=3 November 2024\|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron\|result=Not moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1256800930#Requested move 3 November 2024}}
	: I think Fritzpoll is right, we need a third-opinion. As neither an inclusionist or a deletionist, I've been ''trying'' to provide a third-opinion. (Operative word: trying.) But really, we probably need an independent group of Wikipedians to talk about this whole concept amongst themselves -- at least for a few days. Only after a consensus has emerged, maybe bring out some of the familiar faces on either side (both AMiB and ikip), but not until they've had a chance to think about the issue in abstract. An independent and wide group of Wikipedians need to decide if it's appropriate to recruit a group based on their inclusion philosophy and then begin linking that group to all kinds of deletion or policy discussions. I'm against this kind of campaigning -- whether it's done by inclusionists or deletionists -- because I think it turns Misplaced Pages into a ], complete with home-bases, generals, and ... squadrons. I liked ARS better when it was concerned with improving articles, even if it wasn't perfect. I shudder to think what would happen if people disagree with that principle, and someone ultimately organizes an equally partisan group at ], with permission to link to the AFD discussions they want to. If that were to happen, I could only hope that administrators would disregard the !votes of both camps. But that's my opinion, and we have to go with what the consensus thinks is good practice. So let's figure out a venue to have this discussion, where it won't be contaminated by the usual voices for at least for a few days. ] (]) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

			==]==
	::What we need is to stop all of these kinds of discussions that always descend into accusatory terrain and get back to improving articles. That is what I tried to do with the two threads above. I cannot understand why so much time on Misplaced Pages is used on RfCs and the like rather than on article building. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
			This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Couldn't agree with you more, A Nobody. But that's kind of why we need to get a resolution to the dispute - so that everyone can get back to doing what's important. A short-term loss of time in an RfC will be a medium-term gain in articles being improved ] (]) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I have yet to personally see an RfC on anything that really accomplished anything other than just raise tensions further. The ones on editors (no need to name names, most here no who I mean) of both inclusionist and deletionist leanings hardly had any meat in the end. Ones on say Plot#Not just showed that the community is totally divided. I think a sign of who is here to improve articles would be seeing who all takes a stand against these threads that seem to go nowhere and do indeed answer my appeals above to divert energy back to article improvement, as say ] and I have been doing at under discussion. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Alas, we have to resolve disputes somehow, and whilst I agree that RFC/U is a little bit of a time-waster, I have seen RfCs in this domain work quite well provided people can remain reasonably civil - and if we actually get someone to determine the outcome of the discussion, which a lot of failed RfCs do not do. ] (]) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: Yeah, an independent discussion would be helpful. Something without the usual suspects. ] (]) 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Which is nearly impossible to accomplish here. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::: Yeah, exactly what me and Fritz are saying. At this point, it's time to work together to frame the issue, and then put it to ''independent'' parties, while we sit and watch for a while. ] (]) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::Someone from either "side" (I ''hate'' using such words) would never go along with that, though. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::: I hate that word too, but there are definitely sides here, and both parties are ''proud'' of their side. If we can't frame the issue in a way that both sides agree with, maybe we can identify the issues they agree upon, and let them both present their arguments where they disagree... then leave it to an independent group to look over and assess. ] (]) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Or better yet, we doing something proactive. Why not divide up the articles currently rescue templated and see how many we can successfully improve? Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: That's not going to happen until we deal with the issue of when it's appropriate to link to talk pages. Otherwise, we're going to keep getting the links, and we're going to keep getting the pushes into a discussion page, and we're going to keep getting the push-backs. ] (]) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::If AfDs are truly closed based on strength of arguments and not by number of participants, then it really wouldn't matter how many editors of a likely bias comment in the AfD. And as far as what we have here, it should be a common courtesy to ask for input from those who have actually been working on the articles under discussion, just as we typically (or should) notify relevant wikiprojects. It should not be about "winning" arguments or feeling somehow personally slighted if an article someone nominated ultimately gets kept. We should want or hope more than anything that when we nominate an article for deletion someone proves us wrong and actually improves it. That is what is best for our project, not scoring AfD wins or anything else, and getting input from article builders and those knowledgeable about the topic under discussion is worthwhile to reaching that end. Napoleon said, "There are people who really believe in their talent to govern simply because they are governing." That can be Wikified in many ways. Just commenting in AfDs doesn't necessarily translate into having some kind of super knowledge or expertise that somehow trumps others' insights. Just because someone has been editing for a time doesn't automatically mean they know better than the rest of us and what's good for the rest of us. I would much rather hear the viewpoints of those who are willing to look for sources and improves the articles under discussion than from those who are not willing and in some cases don't want to to the point of wanting the article deleted under any circumstance, because it's a "type" of article. Here, once again, we are making an issue of a non-issue and filling up all sorts of talk page space with words that cannot once again make me think imagine if all of this text (from sadly now myself included) were used referencing articles instead. One of the biggest let downs of Misplaced Pages is how much time all of us (as I am commenting here, I am guilty too), spend arguing over trivialities rather than building articles. We make waaaay more out of things than we should, because again, the end result is we get new insights from people in discussions rather than the same olds. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: This issue is based on a legitimate disagreement as to how we obtain new insights for important discussions. Is it helpful, disruptive, or merely tolerable if someone organizes a WP-space based on inclusion philosophy, and then uses that WP-space to link to discussions? I'm sure there are deletionists and inclusionists where this is a matter of pride and "victory", so that's why it's important to ask the question as a matter of behavior -- using the rule equally across the inclusion spectrum. This issue is not going to just go away by asking people to focus on articles, because the issue is fundamentally linked to whether we organize the WP-space based on improving articles or we organize the WP-space based on exerting ideological influence upon talk page discussions. I don't think we're going to make much more progress here, because you've already made up your mind about the issue (although it appeared you leaned the other way), as have I. So to get closure, we need to put it to an independent group who can say "you're right AMiB, this is a problem" or "you're right ikip, anyone should be able to do this because it's helpful". That's not going to happen here. But outside editors are coming here to try and help out, and get it away from inclusionism/deletionism, so we can close this discussion in a non-ideological way. ] (]) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::We need not make a hash out of every single perceived issue on Misplaced Pages. We don't need a committee to iron every last thing out. Making an issue out of everything does more harm than not, i.e. it raises more tensions, makes editors bitter, and doesn't really improve any articles. We should reserve this much text for the really serious issues. Believe me, there's lots of stuff that I think flat out wrong and bothersome regarding deletions, but life is too short to get riled up over everything I am not happy about. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::: This is an issue that will cut across every talk page discussion that ARS links to. Unfortunately, this issue is exactly about how much text we should spend on really serious issues, and who that text should come from. Personally, I'd love to find a way to reduce the amount of text, by making that text less partisan. ] (]) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::The best thing anyone can do is to lead by example. Rescue some articles, show people how "it's done" as it were, and then encourage them to help in these efforts. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::: Leadership by example hasn't been working, unfortunately. Maybe we should drastically scale back the number of talk page discussions that we link to? ] (]) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	: Speaking as someone who was part of WP:ARS back when it was first started, I'll agree with Fritzpoll & Randomran in their statements. This WikiProject has drifted away from its original intent -- to save articles on notable subjects by improving them. (Perhaps the best example would be ] -- Carcharoth took an article that was ] because it appeared to be a crufty list of random stuff & made it into a wonderful article.) The reasoning was that if you ''knew'' a subject was notable, then you knew enough to rewrite the article so it was a clear keep. The purpose was not to organize inclusionists to vote to keep articles, not to provide one more battlefield for partisans, not to create an in-group like Esperanza reportedly became. You don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to further its goals -- but it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work. And if individuals try to twist the goals of this WikiProject to something else, then IMHO they are being disruptive, & should be treated accordingly. -- ] (]) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::There are diverse opinions from ARS members. The "deletionist element" (I hate such labels) are seen by some as disruptive in their actions, just as some perceive the "inclusionist side" as sometimes being disruptive. That brush paints both ways. So restricting what a member can or cannot do "as a member" might simply force folks to leave the ARS as membership being pointless... leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those few who remain and encouraging a perhaps geater "battlefield". Or is the reduction of ARS volunteer membership an unpoken goal? You correctly point out that "''it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work''". I personally find the community at ARS {both the inclusionary and exclusionary elements), and the limited tools we have, to be of great value to work on improving the project. ''']''' '']'' 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::"'''All are welcome'''" - says so right at the top of the page, so of course opinions will be diverse, and it would be good to remember that rather than get dragged into discussions of who is somehow "entitled" to be a member, who is a "leader" of the project etc.- all that smacks of ]. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::The issue of membership or not is not problematic - all WikiProjects maintain lists of members who are interested editors. I don't think there is any question either that the concept of ARS in the rescuing of articles up for deletion is not a very good one, and I would never suggest putting that up for debate at an RfC, since it is the founding purpose of the project. All the disputes here have a root in a perceived expansion in that role, as I mention (and so won't bore you by repeating) in my opening comments. My receiving a wider mandate from the community with a fresh perspective over whether ARS' remit extends, for example to all XfDs, the issues (and therefore the damaging and time-consuming arguments) are rendered moot and the work of the project can focus on article rescue, and whatever other areas ARS finds it has mandate to work in. A community-wide RfC is helpful because, as Schmidt suggests, such labels as inclusionist and deletionist are only applicable to a tiny minority of editors - most editors are some shade of grey. WikiProjects are for the benefit of Misplaced Pages - a collaborative effort of many editors of many viewpoints - asking the community for feedback on some of these issues is an obvious step to allowing ARS to get on with its job. Best wishes, ] (]) 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::No argument here, the more feedback the better. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Excellent - it seems there is a it of positive feedback in regards to my proposal. I will see how this plays out over the next 24 hours and then we can gather together the issues regarding the ARS that need resolving for the RfC. ] (]) 23:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Fritzpoll, I have changed my mind. If you feel like an rfc is the best thing, lets do an RFC. I have struck all of my disagreements. ] (]) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Glad to hear you say that, Ikip - I'm not sure how well this would work if you weren't on board ] (]) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::It sounds like it would go on without me, regardless, so I might as well catch the train, it beats getting ran over by it. ] (]) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*And now discussions can begin on just who gets notified and how. Carefully. If the notification results in specific attentions of avowed "deletionists" or "inclusionists", one "side" or the other will cry foul. Certainly a notice at the villiage pimp might suffice, but I was aboard and working on articles months before I ever knew it existed, and fell it would not bring the input from a large enough section of the community. One way, might be to use the last (arbitrary number XXX) AfD articles tagged for rescue by ARS, whether kept or deleted or merged or redirected, and send a bot notice to every particpant of such AFDs... which would then fairly and neutrally include every editor from either side of the fence who particpated in such discussions either pro or con. "Inclusionists" cannot claim undue advantage to "deletionists" nor vice-versa. It is how those (arbitrary number XXX) of articles were improved or not which becomes the basis of the discussion and ARS's part... not who did it or not or what their motives were. Improving articles for the improvement of wiki is the bottom line. ''']''' '']'' 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	*'''Comemnt'''. I appreciate the potential for more clarity. In addition, the point that our project page needs to be updated per recent discussions also makes sense. We ''just'' had an RfC and that confirmed that TfD, and arguably other XfD items were fine for ARS. In addition some more experience folks in ARS and AfD/DrV issues seem to be aligned that at least some uses of rescue tag on DrVs are also acceptable. ARS is a Wikiproject concerned directly with AfD and as such various discussion on perceived problems and solutions of XfD have always happened. As is evident by even this last week's participation there are diverging opinions on if ARS is enabling canvassing in practice or spirit. Depending on one's views and interpretation of what it means to enable and canvass may set your decsion one way or another on if ARS does do this. As such I feel scope RfC would be a somewhat fruitless use of energy as our scope actually hasn't changed as much as been specifically clarified that rescuable content can be found across the encyclopedia. Stepping a bit into theory here, our good and best articles combine ideas as words, templates, images, categories etc to convey information. ARS is here to help find ways of rescuing content that benefits our articles and thus our readers. Scope is not been the core concern although that is a byproduct of contention which has been somewhat resolved. I have little doubt that RfC would support using ARS on most of not all XfD with the main concern of how do we make it work while mitigating problems. Thus our project page should be updated and clarified a bit, something I was hoping to do but have been largely derailed by the rather full discussion here instead. Talking is good but so is doing.<br><br>IMHO, the issues to be worked out - on a project level first - is how to address the perceptions of ARS talkpage posts used to canvass and reactions to those perceptions as well as similar perceptions of the results as seen on AfDs.<br>Regardless if they technically are or are not canvassing there really shouldn't be a need to battle over talkpage posts as much as approach them civilly.<br>Seperately, but perhaps intertwined based on one's perspective, is the percieved canvassing on XfD discussions themselves. That is does the rescue tag cause canvassing or what? The answer IMHO is that it doesn't but there are always folks who will !vote poorly (both for or against) so addressing those editors would sem to make sense. As such ARS can have a proactive stance and look to doing a coopertaive AfD survey of recently-closed AfDs. Creating a list of '''all''' editors with "empty" !votes and contacting them to point out the waste of their energy and encourage them to more fully express their position. Personally I have a proposal for each of these areas and I think it would expeditiously help rather than what looks to more (another) lengthy discussions about perceived motives. If we can find common ground on how to civilly approach these issues I think that would make sense so all those interested in working on articles again can do so. ] 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Michael, I think we need to focus on what we should be asking, before we focus on how to ask. Actually, now that I think about it, your suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS.
	:Benjiboi, I have been thinking about it long and hard, and I am actually open to not posting DRVs and TFDs, simply refering these posters to sister projects, if those sister projects encourage the saving of articles, not to deletion. I don't know. I am up in the air about all of this. But if you feel it is settled, then it is settled.
	:It would suggest we all start to use the word "notification" instead of canvassing, which has a negative connotation.
	:I think a good basis to start from is our sister projects, what does and does not work for them, how do they approach notification?
	:Instead of maybe focusing on subject wikiprojects, maybe see what works on wikiprojects like, ], which revolve around a template too, <nowiki>{{notability}}</nowiki>, their first sentence states:
	::"The Notability Project is a WikiProject based on ]."
	:or
	:]
	:they have <nowiki>{{Cleanup-spam}}</nowiki> ] (]) 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

			Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: ]. -- ]] 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	The above is all tl;dr, with plenty of name-calling and whatnot. Personally, I think if the following happened, the bickering would stop:
			: during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in ] and ]. -- ]] 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	#The ARS diligently self-polices this talk page and removes any sort of attempts to direct attention to a policy or guideline discussion relating to notability (or really, any policy or guideline not germane to the functioning of the project). ], ], and ] exist for a reason. If people here are so worried about missing essential policy discusisons, they can watchlist the aforementioned pages. There should be no need to place any messages whatsoever here, as it's irrelevant to this project and as shown, has only served to inflame conflict.
			::I didn't know him, but RIP.] (]) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	#ARS members who actively improve articles at deletion recuse themselves from actually !voting and instead note on the AfD itself that they have made improvements to the article. It decreases the possibility of any possible partisan conflict to zero and indicates that any possible improvement is made in good faith with no attempt to escalate any sort of conflict. A Nobody already does this (or has; his behavior changes so rapidly I don't keep track), so it shouldn't be difficult for people here to follow that. They are free to inform people on their talk pages to revisit their !votes to see whether their improvements are sufficient and continue to work on the article if they are not.
			:::"You got to worry about deletionists," . -- ]] 00:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
	#The ARS conducts fairly regular (say quarterly) sweeps through its members and removes inactive ones who haven't done any article rescuing. Uncle G's points above are salient: if you aren't actually ''doing'' any article rescuing, you shouldn't really be associated with this project. The premise of the project is someone no one—inclusionists and deletionists alike—will disagree with. There are quite a few people here because the ARS has been effectively turned into a political tool for inclusionists, which as the founding members of the ARS have adequately put it, was not the original intention of the project by any stretch of the imagination. Other WikiProjects do this ocassionally with their members by asking people to resign as members to show that they still have an interest in the project. I don't see why this should be any different. Project members already give out barnstars actively for rescuing articles, so motivation shouldn't be a problem here.
	#The ARS appoints a corps of coordinators to ensure that this is all enforced and that it stays on task with its intended goal: improving articles. See ] and ] for examples. There's already plenty of maintenance work within the project, so this isn't a hard job to undertake. I'd recommend that people widely considered open-minded and accessible by both "sides" of the inclusion spectrum take the job. They should be readily apparent at this point.
	::If no one can agree to anything concrete here, then I'd agree with Fritzpoll that an RfC is necessary, and if nothing comes of that, then ArbCom may be appropriate to stop the behavior issues coming out of the rampant canvassing that has been seen here. It's greatly disturbing to see that so many of the original members of the ARS find the direction the ARS is taking to be grossly wrong, and if the current members don't interpret that as a sign that something is amiss, then we're going to ultimately end up at ArbCom as I previously noted. I pray it doesn't come to that. — <font face="Segoe Script">]</font> <font face="Verdana"><sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive. It's really not very hard - find somewhere else to put the policy stuff, and leave this page for its original purpose - rescuing articles from deletion by improving them. Attempting to make this particular page into a general inclusionist thing is stirring up drama for no good reason - when it could just be put somewhere else. ] (]) 10:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Sigh, another proposal to neuter ARS from an editor whose edit history is completely opposed to the ideals of ARS. At least you didn't say you have the best interest of ARS in mind like others have.
	::::Sephiroth BCR, you are a member of, contributed to (or been mentioned in) , of those 69 wikiprojects, how many have had outsiders come in and demand such draconian solutions?
	::::I agree with Rebecca, that "This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive"
	::::Lets be fair here folks.
	::::If everyone is so worried about policy discussions, canvassing, etc in wikiprojects, lets move this discussion to ] and we can have a RFC there, to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things. 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::It's a silly suggestion, for sure, but it's not being helped by the fact that certain people associated with this project are going for the dramaful option instead of the easier one. Look, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist. On matters of policy, I probably agree with these people. But the drama-free way of dealing with this is to let this focus on improving articles to save them from deletion, and to ship the policy and canvassing stuff either to a) someone's user subpage, or b) some other WikiProject - which has the advantage of not enveloping something which is actually working quite well in megadrama. If that material disappears elsewhere, then so does the drama. ] (]) 12:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::I would not throw out Sephiroth's suggestions so quickly. They are not bureaucratic but instead a way to separate the goals of rescuing articles from the non-goal of directly influencing XFD !voting, though I 'd argue the 3rd suggestion, about purging non-rescuing members, to be the only questionable addition. The fourth about project coordinators is something that many WP have taken up so that's completely fair to ask for. The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give this project the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an inclusionist cabal. They are not bureaucratic but instead simply reflect basic existing principles on WP (notably ]). --] (]) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Masem, what do you think of the idea of having an RfC at ] to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things?
	::::::::I think that ], a project which you are a member of, and which actively discusses deletions and policy, should have these same rules too, what do you think?
	::::::::And no, its not because of the alleged disruption of this project that we are different from ]. What rules have we broken?
	::::::::I love this entry:
	<!--:::::::::"These 4 articles: PlayStation Portable System Software, PlayStation 3 System Software,Wii System Software and Xbox 360 System Software are useful, but I don't see them as encyclopedic. They are just lists of everytime the system was updated. I'm considering putting them in AFD, but I'm not sure what reasoning to give. Thoughts? RobJ1981 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"
	::::::::No one quickly deleted that one, as an editor suggested they would above, although it was ignored.
	::::::::Or this one:-->
	:::::::::(←) Might I suggest we set out a project purge, basically going to all WikiProjects that deal with video games but outside of video games, and drop a message in the main project talk page that unless there is a "wait, hold it!", the project will be reverted to a Task Force of WP:VG? Obviously, the larger active onces will reply, but others will probably just be adsorbed. --MASEM 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Masem wants to create a "project purge" of video games, and yet he is here telling ARS how we should function, am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?
	::::::::Masem, I think WP:VG should adapt the first two recommendations because:
	::::::::"The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an deletionist cabal."
	::::::::] (]) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::Personally I do not see a contradiction here. I see it as a consolidation. No information would be lost, as far as I can see. ] ] 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::The '''suggestion''' (which was ultimately done) to move VG related WP into the WP:VG was a matter of helping to remove the extraneous weight of those smaller projects and to help them to come under the usual conformity of WP:VG. The only thing that would be deleted, if anything, were the pages in Misplaced Pages: space related to that project that would be unnecessary as a Task Force. That's nothing like what you are suggesting or the matter at hand of main space articles.
	:::::::::And when AFD notices '''usually''' go up on the talk page at WT:VG, they either are neutral, or are meant to help get more project insight on an AFD that is going the opposite direction that the project would have - whether this is keep or delete (eg just as if a large number of editors are clamoring to keep a barely notable flash game and thus the WP:VG are brought in to help assert what is necessary, there are requests to help prevent topics from being deleted). There is no implicit project bias to keep or remove topics. Unfortunately, there is an implicit bias by this project to keep articles - that itself is not bad nor should be removed, but it has to be kept in mind in all actions that members of this project take. That means advertising for non-rescue help for AFDs on this page is not appropriate. --] (]) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Well, I expected Ikip's refusal to even address the substance of my points and merely attack me, and would be interested to see what the other ARS members have to say. These aren't difficult requests. The ARS retains its core values and can safely remove any partisan influences from it should it implement my suggestions. Dismissing it as mere "bureaucracy" is rather vacuous also. Other projects have coordinators to manage large numbers of task forces, discussions, and other material (I should know, I'm a coordinator for ]), and arguing that this is "bureaucracy" implies that this is being created for no other purpose than to have a process, which is blatantly false. — <font face="Segoe Script">]</font> <font face="Verdana"><sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Agree about coordinators being needed. ] (]) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

			I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that {{u\|GreenC}} has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Misplaced Pages Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? ]🐉(]) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
	=== Questions that need answering ===
	Ok, there seems to e a rough consensus for an RfC. To answer Schmidt's question above, I would suggest a posting to WP:VPP and WP:CENT, which would not canvass any side specifically - I'm open to other suggestionsm but for the sake of propriety, I would be wary of any individual talk page postings. Hopefully there can be some agreement on that before the RfC opens.<p>
	So, what questions need answering? I suggest that if there is a question that needs answering, we start a new subsection below and discuss how to present the wording of the pro and con argument for the community to consider. I have a few ideas, but I'll just set up a sample or two below to get the ball rolling - what I write isn't set in stone, it is a distilation of the sides as I see it, and further discussion can add, remove or refine. Add subsections, go wild, but stay civil. ] (]) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	====Proposal 1: ARS should participate in XfD discussions like other wikiprojects.====
	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-
	!
	! '''''Argument'''''
	\|-
	\| '''Pro'''
	\| The Article Rescue Squadron presently deals with rescuing content in articles, but all XfD discussions ultimately impact on encyclopedic content. For example, the content of an article template being discussed at TfD could feasibly be improved to allow retention of a useful article element.
	\|-
	\| '''Con'''
	\| Most XfD discussions outside AfD are not content discussions; they are to do with technical, behavioural or project-space constructs that do not directly impact on article content. It is therefore difficult to see how such material could be rescued like article content.
	\|}
	I think this is acceptably summarised, but I must admit the possibility of fault. I suggest discussion of this in terms of whether this is an acceptable way to present the question, rather than spending further time debating the validity of the opposing positions. ] (]) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

			== Warning, it looks like the page moving of ] broke subscription may have broken subscription to the page ==
	:I must say I'm really opposed to this concept at this time. This project as a whole has been maligned now for weeks and we just finished an RfC stating that indeed Xfd was likley within scope and certainly TfDs were. Seperately a group of editors familiar with the issues came to a rough consensus that DrVs could also be acceptable. In the midst of some rather contentious and disruptive activities to this project I find the rather uninspiring prospect of rehashing conversation already meted out troubling. You may not accept this but any such RfC will quickly devolve into the "as long as they don't canvass" refrain which is the real issue to be addressed. And lo, we are. If you must do a system-wide RfC then one on ''Are posts to Wikiprojects still suppose to be NPOV?'' would be more apropo or ''Should we look to enforcing quality participation at XfD?'' Scope is really not the problem or source of contention here. ] 01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			{{tracked\|T373543}}
	::Agree with Ben. Notifying other editors is the central issue here. DRVs have already been discussed, and we agreed that DRVs are okay. Again, I think a ] RfC on this issue is the best route. ] (]) 07:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			Hi,
	:::That's fine - it was just a sample :) I'll chuck some other in below, with pros and cons to be edited] (]) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			Just a word of warning as I just noticed that I suddenly wasn't subscribed to the rescue list at ] anymore after the recent move by @] and @].
	::::Fritzpoll, In all three suggestions you posit you use absolute words.
			I'm not sure if there is anything an admin could do to bulk restore the subscriptions since the users deleted the original page? ] (]) 15:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Proposal one: "all"
	:::::Proposal two: "any"
	:::::And most troubling of all, proposal three: "unlimited" with the words "any" "perfect" in the text.
	::::I fear you are wording questions the average wikipedian will of course object too.
	::::Instead of using absolute terms, I suggest comparing ARS to comparable wikiprojects. ] (]) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

			:Hi @], the original page wasn't deleted par se, it's now a redirect, see {{-r\|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}. I think the Topic subscription is supposed to work with page moves. – ] (]) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	====Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussion by editors like other wikiprojects.====
			::It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. ] (]) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	{\| class="wikitable"
			:::Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at ] - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? ] (]) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	\|-
			::::{{ping\|Raladic\|Ammarpad\|CFA}} I filed {{phab\|T373543}}. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	!
			:::::Thank you @]. – ] (]) 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	! '''''Argument'''''
	\|-
	\| '''Pro'''
	\| ARS is a grouping dedicated to rescuing content, but is naturally finite in its membership. To maximise its benefit, other editors must be able to notify the ARS of XfD discussions. This is just the same as other projects that are notified of XfD discussions that are relevant to them, and the only difference is the scope of the ARS.
	\|-
	\| '''Con'''
	\| ARS consists of editors who have an inclusionist leaning. Consequently, notifying them of such discussions is notifying a group of a known persuasion towards content, in violation of ].
	\|}
	May need some expansion/cleaning up, but this seems to summarise the different positions. ] (]) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:*Both pro and con are expressed very succinctly; together they express the tug of war that's going on around here. I'm commenting to get the conversation rolling. <b>]</b> ] 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	: This is the kind of thing that might need more evidence. It used to be that ARS was not dominantly inclusionist, but rather focused on editors who tried in good faith to bring articles in line with current policies and guidelines. But the recent recruitment drive has changed ARS. I can find diffs to help substantiate that, if need be. ] (]) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	::*It would be interesting to see the difs. I came here during ]'s notorious "canvassing campaign" when I had an "Inclusionist" userbox on my Userpage (which has since been replaced with an ARS userbox). If you look at the membership list, however, most of the people who joined ARS did so before being invited by Ikip. I think the Inclusionist/!vote stacking arguements are more ] than factual. <b>]</b> ] 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

			== Tentative ARS candidates from ] backlog ==
	====Proposal 3: Article Rescue Squadron can conduct itself like other wikiprojects.====
	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-
	!
	! '''''Argument'''''
	\|-
	\| '''Pro'''
	\| A WikiProject is a group of editors collaborating on encyclopedic content, and this definition fits Article Rescue Squadron. The only difference is that the ARS has a larger scope.
	\|-
	\| '''Con'''
	\| A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Misplaced Pages. The scope of ARS is not specific enough, and so is not a WikiProject, and consequently does not have the need of notification that other WikiProjects may have, in that its editors are not specific experts in the content being discussed.
	\|}
	Again, trying to summarise the two sides of this dispute. Undoubtedly overlaps with Proposal 2, but is sufficiently distinct. It may be possible to combine them. ] (]) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:The con here really needs to be rephrased. There isn't any "right" of notification intrinsic to being a Wikiproject; Wikiprojects are notified because it's a good way to alert knowledgeable editors. Because ARS has a completely unlimited scope, you're not likely to find editors knowledgeable about any specific topic. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	::How about now? ] (]) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I changed the slanted title "ARS is a WikiProject with an unlimited scope over content", and reformated the text, removing more absolute terms, "any" "perfect". ] (]) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::: I think we need to work on this at a separate page. We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point. Merely listing a few options is not going to get good feedback, and definitely not on the main ARS page. ] (]) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I'm confused Randomran.
	:::::You wrote: "I don't understand how you can ... continue to push comments about me and WP:FICT that are both incorrect and irrelevant."
	:::::And here you write: "We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point."
	:::::Our first contact was on FICT. You, Phil and Masem would have not suddenly shown an interest in this project if it was not for me being heavily involved in the FICT RFC, which would have merged or buried thousands of articles.
	:::::In addition, one editor here has been incredibly disruptive. When I talk about his behavior editors who support your position, cry foul, and say this is not the right forum to talk about this. But you freely talk about my behavior, first vaguely, and now openly, and no one who supports your position is arguing you should remove these comments.
	:::::In addition, no one here, in fact, no one anywhere has argued that I have broken any rules. I have followed all wikipedia rules. The rules guide or behavior and tell us what we can and cannot do. I find it incredibly disingeous to punish me, or by extension punish ARS for following the rules. '''Again Randomran, if you don't like the current rules, change them. But don't attempt to punish a person or project for following all the rules.''' ] (]) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: This has nothing to do with WP:FICT, and our first contact is irrelevant. I'm not talking about those events. I'm talking about the actual recruitment drive and subsequent talk page linking. Which isn't about you, although it's related to you. I'm not looking to punish or single out your behavior, but I don't think it will be possible to present this issue without talking about a few things you did. Specifically, contacting 300 inclusionists. I'm trying not to make this personal, so please don't. ] (]) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	* Listen, we should be able to present this civilly and neutrally. We should be able to present what may have changed ARS's scope, and we should also be able to present how other attempts like AMiB were mishandled and needlessly inflammatory and accusatory. I think the first step is to move this RFC under preparation to its own page. Either as a subpage here, or somewhere else. ] (]) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I STRONGLY oppose moving this to a side page. A sub page will only isolate the page, and lower the number of editors who contribute to this RfC. If we all really want a broad conensus on how to proceed, moving to a side page would not be good. It is obvious that several dozen editors, with varying views from all spectrums, are watching this page. There is no guarantee that this same number of people will watch a side page. ] (]) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

			These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's ]; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Misplaced Pages in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days ] hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.
	==Why? ==
	Back to the original question. In the above 50 pages, I count only three reasons editors gave that ARS should not appreciate all of the benefits and priveleges of a wikiproject.

			At press time, two in the backlog--] and ], both ]s--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{tl\|notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)
	# Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it...This is manifestly untrue of this page.
	# I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't...I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here.
	# We are not a wikiproject

			{{div col}}
	#Response one: ]
			* ] (April 2023) / {{Find sources\|2023 World Seniors Darts Champion of Champions}}
	#Response two: Has anyone here ever done the same thing as answer #2 has said? The editor says he ''would'' do this, but has anyone? I see "come and keep x" a lot in other wikiprojects, without a signal word of criticism. I am sure there is some criticism somewhere, for example if a inclusionist editor posts on a deletionist leaning wikiproject. But it isn't widespread. Would editors be happy if we refactored request to help to be more neutral?
			* ] (June 2024; per ]--but this might survive nonetheless) / {{Find sources\|Abki Baar 400 Paar}}
	# Response three: the only difference is we are not a wikiproject in name.
			* ] (September 2023) / {{Find sources\|Alsace20}}
	] (]) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (January 2019) / {{Find sources\|The Dream Wanderer}}
			* ] (November 2021) / {{Find sources\|Nanjing Week}}
			* ] (November 2022) / {{Find sources\|National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program}}
			* ] (February 2019) / {{Find sources\|Rountree, Springfield}}
			* ] (September 2016) / {{Find sources\|ShipSpace}}
			* ] (November 2020) / {{Find sources\|Society of Classical Poets}}
			* ] ({{tl\|local}}, April 2018) / {{Find sources\|Soroush Cinema}}
			* ] (February 2023) / {{Find sources\|WDC UK Matchplay}}
			* ] (October 2023) / {{Find sources\|John T. Wilson (born 1861)}}
			{{div end}}

			As an ]/], I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, ''do'' matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)
	:Re 2: You might want to have a look at ]. It has many AfD notifications, which typically lead to project members outnumbering the other AfD participants. The difference is that for WP:MATH members the questions are normally: "What is it? Where can we find out more? Is it notable?" As a result, the project members are often divided, but often ''seem'' to block vote one way or the other. Sometimes this does lead to suspicion and accusations similar to those which this project faces. --] (]) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Because Wikiprojects can be created or destroyed rather easily. The ARS should not be a Wikiproject, and to the extent that it "behaves" like a Wikiproject, those behaviours should be ended. The cameraderie (which is pretty minimal, anyways) or shared sense of identity makes ARS a target of people who want to say "See? Look, rabid inclusionists!"--becoming a clique of that sort only damages ARS. ARS should be viewed as an institution like MedCab or 3O, where everyone comes to find the AfD's that could use specific improvements, generally sourcing. ] (]) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	* '''Comment by Randomran''': I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists. But the difference between ARS and other WikiProjects is that ARS has always had a special status. When it was created, there were worries that it would become nothing more than an inclusionist lobby group. But that was -- across the inclusion spectrum by the way -- who pointed out two reasons why ARS was not an inclusionist lobby group:
	*# The project was confined in scope to improving articles tagged for deletion. (Which everyone agreed with.)
	*# The memberlist is not dominantly inclusionist. (Which a majority of people agreed with.)
	:: On occasion the group spent more time talking at AFD than improving articles. But this was rare enough to be tolerable, and the closing admin could usually ignore the "well-researched, well-verified" !votes when they saw an article with nothing more than primary and self-published sources. This was a small inconvenience considering that ARS was able to save dozens of articles on their merits. Most people across the inclusion spectrum celebrated ARS, and even deletionists had to accept that when an article improved.
	:: ARS has fundamentally changed in two ways. . The second is that the group has been linking to other discussions that don't involve specific articles up for deletion, at a rate that is impossible to ignore. Now, it's impossible to undo the inclusionist recruitment drive, which itself is problematic. But even then, the drama would probably go away if ARS volunterily kept its original scope of tagging articles up for AFD, and improving them, and even participating in AFDs to the extent that they understand that it's not a vote. But when it starts to trickle into policy discussions, joining in discussions at other WikiProjects, or other centralized discussions that aren't about an article up for deletion, you can understand how this undermines the good will that ARS previously enjoyed. If you can't, then I think the only answer is to construct an RFC where we limit input to people who aren't tight with ARS, ikip, or AMiB for that matter. (Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too.) ] (]) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::First, as you wrote on my talk page:
	::::"I just want to chime in here and say we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith." (although I never used the term "bad faith")
	:::I would appreciate if you strike:
	::::"I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists."
	:::One, this is not the case (see next point for example), and two, we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith. I think we can agree that such comments are not helpful.
	:::Second, I removed any mention of another editor's behavior, even going so far as refactoring out the comments, because of a suggestion of other editors. . ] (]) 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	I probably am not the most welcome person to sound off on this, but I'm going to anyway. The main problem in perception that the ARS has is not that it doesn't enjoy the benefits and privileges of other Wikiprojects, but that in fact it has one that others do not. As far as I'm aware, ARS is the only Wikiproject whose tag goes on the article page rather than the talk page. While it may not functionally make much difference, as it is likely to get categorized anyway, more than anything else this is your big problem with the perception that you're simply "rabid inclusionists". --]]] 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*It also has an unlimited scope. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*Counterexample: ]. All of the various cleanup-XYZ templates go on articles. But where the template goes is not the issue at hand, nor even one that has been brought up as a factor. (The template isn't even central to rescuing articles. I have two articles currently in mind for rescue that weren't, with one still not being, tagged with the template at all.) The issue at hand is that because of some editors who want a battleground, ARS is being turned into one, and being an ARS "member" is diverging from being someone who actually rescues articles, to the extent that the battlegrounders are now actively ''attempting to drive away'' from the ARS people whose focus is working on articles. ] (]) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:*Likewise, I recently helped rescue one article as a merge, another as a cleanup and ''not'' commenting at the AfD, and an image (let's not go there yet!), none of which were tagged for Rescue. Tagging articles helps "rally the troops", but isn't one hundred per cent necessary, nor is a lot of the back and forth we've been experiencing lately. We're most effective when we're lurking at AfD'd articles. <b>]</b> ] 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

			Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...
	==Greece and South American countries==
			----
	{{resolved\|Moved to task force page. ] 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)}}
			''(XPosted from ].)''
	Moved to ] as per suggestion by Banjeboi. ] (]) 06:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Thank you! ] 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

			--] <small>(] ])</small> 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
	== Is ] a good candidate for the tag? ==

			== Requested move 3 November 2024 ==
	I usually see the tag on stuff that is borderline notable, and that's not really the case here. The question is whether he's notable outside of the whole ] media thing. If it is appropriate, I could use some help distinguishing him as a notable person himself. You can throw a rock at google news and hit a thousand articles about Sarah, but sifting through them and finding ones about Johnston is more difficult. - ] (]) (]) 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:In light of the above criticisms, I took the unusual step of ''removing'' the rescue tag. As you and I agree, there's no shortage of news coverage for him in the context of Palin. What, then, is really the goal of the rescue squadron in this case? The article is well-sourced and articulate. I just don't see our participation as adding to the discussion. Any editor can feel free to revert my tag removal, and I won't dispute it, but I just see this as so unambiguously outside the ARS scope that the tag doesn't belong. ] (]) 17:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::That's fine. I asked because it didn't look like other articles I've seen so tagged. - ] (]) (]) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I added the tag and would have left it. Once the tag is on there's not a great reason to remove it. ARS members are better for seeing more articles that have nuanced AfD reasons and BLP1E is a good example. In any case there does seem to be consensus to keep it at this point so I'd be shocked if it wasn't. ] 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::* The ARS is not just about adding sources. Articles of this sort tend to attract political partisans to the discussion but such editors are less likely to be familiar with the policy issues which arise at AFD. ARS participation is useful in such cases to provide an informed perspective which is not so political. ] (]) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I read the ongoing DRV, and I don't think he is. Too remote, and major BLP issues. ] (]) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	==Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{tl\|rescue}} tag==
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
	In an effort toward constructive solutions, ''appropriate for any Wikiproject'', I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{tl\|rescue}} tag to specifically look for "empty" !votes. The AfD's themselves could have had any end result and the votes themselves only have to be ]. All those identified (no regard to being ARS affiliated or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities. No pillory needed, just positive and constructive criticism that woud certianly benefit all concerned. If approved in theory, specifics would be metted out based on if bots or hand counting methods were used.

			The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' ] ] 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:''Note: '''Please''' keep comments concise and on point.''
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}} – It's a WikiProject.   <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' as nom. ] 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			# <code><nowiki>{{Short description\|WikiProject}}</nowiki></code>
	* '''Support'''. This should provide a useful pointer of what is ''actually'' happening at Afd rather than relying on subjective perceptions. (I'd actually be in favour of a survey of the "!vote quality" <small>for want of a better term</small> across '''all''' Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			# <code><nowiki>{{WikiProject status\|active\|sc1=WP:RESCUE\|sc2=WP:ARS}}</nowiki></code>
	* '''Support''': this is a decent idea. It will show where ARS is effective, and show areas where ARS can improve its effectiveness. It may be hard since many articles tagged for rescue are ultimately deleted, though. ] (]) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			# "{{tq\|Welcome to '''WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron'''. This WikiProject works toward }}"
	*You would have to also look to see how in the discussions actually edited the articles as well, though, no? And how can you do that without undeleting the articles? Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			# {{tl\|WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
	**Actually I think we are ''only'' looking at quality of !votes on the AfD; if someone edited the article in some way is also not the issue on this proposal - just poorly casted !votes. ] 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			# ]
	***Also, I would hope such a thing works both way, i.e. it is not just about ARS members saying to "keep" but also those who say "delete as cruft" and the like who have no mainspace edits to the articles or show no sign of looking for sources. Sometimes I notice trends like what I reported , but other times we don't always pick up on the indiscriminate copy and paste "delete per noms" that are basically "delete all articles on fictional characters" or "delete all articles on bilateral relations", without considering their individual merits. Even I will argued to delete some fictional character articles, as at ], just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at ]. It's the indiscriminate approach that is a concern. Just because an article is rescue templated doesn't mean it can be rescue and at the same time, just because it's on bilateral relations or about a fictional elements doesn't mean it can't be rescue as well. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			# "{{tq\|Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is}}"
	****Hey now, I called ] on the nominator days earlier for ]... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) ] (]) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			# "{{tq\|The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about}}"
	***Absolutely, it should highlight '''all''' empty !votes. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			<b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	**An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''', ] is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''weak oppose to oppose''' The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. ] (]) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Neutral''' - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. ] (]) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	**''One'' of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{tl\|rescue}} tag attracts poor !votes. This would help address the issue but do so neutrally. Neither targeting nor excluding any editors but simply on improving the atmosphere at AfDs. ] 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	***Who's to ~~say that~~ the ~~AFD~~ ~~template~~ ~~itself~~ ~~doesn't~~ ~~attract~~ ~~weak~~ ~~"votes"?~~ We ~~have,~~ ~~after~~ ~~all~~, ~~had "arguments~~ to ~~avoid"~~ to ~~style~~ ~~votes~~ ~~long~~ ~~before~~ the ~~ARS~~ ~~and~~ ~~certainly~~ in ~~AfDs~~ in ~~which~~ ~~the~~ ~~ARS~~ is ~~not~~ ~~involved.~~ ~~Sincerely,~~ --]~~<sup>''~~]~~''</sup>~~ 21:13, 9 ~~May~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		*:small addendum - the page ] needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). ] (]) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. ] (]) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	***That's true, and arguments to avoid are regularly bandied about at Afd. But I think the intention here is to find empirical evidence of whether adding the {{tl\|rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Mild oppose'''. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --] (]) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	****I wonder if it encourages some to make bogus delete "votes" as I have seen a few times now where someone makes a joke about it being tagged for rescue in a delete "vote" that doesn't really seem to focus on the actual article itself. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 21:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*****But no ~~other~~ ~~wikiproject~~ ~~has~~ to go ~~through~~ ~~such~~ ~~scrutinty.~~ We ~~should~~ ~~include~~ ~~WP:VG,~~ ~~for~~ ~~example~~ in ~~this~~ ~~study,~~ ~~and~~ ~~maybe~~ ~~one other~~, ~~say~~ ~~warhammer~~. ] (]) 22:15, 9 ~~May~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' Not organized as a Wikiproject. ] has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? ] (]) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- ]] 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	******Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			*:Quoting ]: "{{tq\|Welcome to '''WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron'''. This WikiProject works toward }}".   <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' Permission is not required for this. Per ], if you think this is a good idea then go for it. ] (]) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			*::Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by ]. ] .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- ]] 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	**Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
			*:::NA1k was with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{tl\|WikiProject status}} was added by them in .   <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	***I was looking to find constructive solutions and work toward finding common ground. If we find a bot way of doing this as well that may be useful for a wider scope. ] 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			*::::Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --] (]) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	****Bots that analyze (as opposed to bots that do things) don't need any special permission, I believe. Someone just needs to do this, if they want it done. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Per ]. Its current name makes it sound like an official Misplaced Pages process like ], when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ] (]) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose.''' This would say nothing about vote-stacking, nothing about this project, and would just disenfranchise the opinion of people who haven't realised that they're required to state the bleeding obvious in order to ''not'' be disenfranchised. ] (]) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			*:It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- ]] 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	**'''Huh?''' ] (]) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Support''': It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. ] (]) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support with Modifications''' In order for a comparison to be valid, it would be better to include not just "rescue" tagged AfD's, but a much broader selection of AfD's. Only then can one see if the tag attracts more improvements than "empty" votes. Note that I do would like to see "keep per improvement" and "keep per sourcing found" votes called out separately. I call them substantial votes, but realize that others might not. ] (]) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			*:Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- ]] 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Wrong focus''' Of more interest is the extent to which the articles have changed while the rescue template is up. Of course this can only be conducted on articles that are kept. And of course either study can be conducted by any editor willing to put in the work. ] (]) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- ]] 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per ]. The proposal would also be ungrammatical with two competing nouns -- Wikiproject and Squadron. The title doesn't have the same format as a thematic project like ]. It's more like ] or ] which have a different style of title. ]🐉(]) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ''<span style="color:Black">]</span>esonant]'' 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 09:00, 1 January 2025

Main page

Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article Rescue Squadron page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61Auto-archiving period: 3 months

faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion? A: Not exactly. First off, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion? A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Misplaced Pages (other than articles)? A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions? A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing? A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Misplaced Pages. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles? A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Misplaced Pages by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause? This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists".
Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Misplaced Pages".
Jennifer Schuessler (8 March 2008). "Gone to Deletopedia".
Adversus Misplaced Pages (17 September 2008). "Adversus Misplaced Pages".
John Broughton (2008). "Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles".

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Snow Opposed, 18 May 2022, see discussion.
Nomination withdrawn, 25 Oct 2021, see discussion.
Keep, 19 November 2019, see discussion.
Snow Keep, 23 June 2019, see discussion.
No Consensus, 8 December 2012, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 10 February 2012, see discussion.
Keep, 18 May 2009, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 12 July 2008, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 23 September 2007, see discussion.
Nomination withdrawn, 19 September 2007, see discussion.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 March 2014.

On 3 November 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Artlist

This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.142.52 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dthomsen8

Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary. -- GreenC 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

He was active during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss and Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_1#Cope_Truss. -- GreenC 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know him, but RIP.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"You got to worry about deletionists," he warned. -- GreenC 00:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that GreenC has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Misplaced Pages Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Warning, it looks like the page moving of Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list broke subscription may have broken subscription to the page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T373543

Hi, Just a word of warning as I just noticed that I suddenly wasn't subscribed to the rescue list at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list anymore after the recent move by @Ammarpad and @Fram. I'm not sure if there is anything an admin could do to bulk restore the subscriptions since the users deleted the original page? Raladic (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Raladic, the original page wasn't deleted par se, it's now a redirect, see Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. I think the Topic subscription is supposed to work with page moves. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. Raladic (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? Raladic (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic, Ammarpad, and CFA: I filed T373543. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ahecht. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tentative ARS candidates from AFC backlog

These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's unassessed AFC backlog; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Misplaced Pages in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days grading hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.

At press time, two in the backlog--Nathaniel Jenkins and Prateek Raj, both BLPs--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)

2023 World Seniors Darts Champion of Champions (April 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Abki Baar 400 Paar (June 2024; per talk page--but this might survive nonetheless) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Alsace20 (September 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The Dream Wanderer (January 2019) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Nanjing Week (November 2021) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (November 2022) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Rountree, Springfield (February 2019) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
ShipSpace (September 2016) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Society of Classical Poets (November 2020) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Soroush Cinema ({{local}}, April 2018) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WDC UK Matchplay (February 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John T. Wilson (born 1861) (October 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

As an eventualist/incrementalist, I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, do matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)

Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...

(XPosted from WT:AFC.)

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. SilverLocust 💬 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron → Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron – It's a WikiProject. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Short description|WikiProject}}
{{WikiProject status|active|sc1=WP:RESCUE|sc2=WP:ARS}}
"Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward "
{{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron#WikiProject Invitation
"Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is"
"The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about"

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, WP:CVU is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. TheWikipede 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Neutral - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
small addendum - the page Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). Raladic (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. Raladic (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Mild oppose. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Not organized as a Wikiproject. WP:Wikiproject has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- GreenC 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Quoting Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron: "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward ". ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by User:Northamerica1000. Special:Diff/472425951/472426031 .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- GreenC 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
NA1k was heavily involved with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{WikiProject status}} was added by them in 2011. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Per WP:SPADE. Its current name makes it sound like an official Misplaced Pages process like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- GreenC 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- GreenC 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- GreenC 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. The proposal would also be ungrammatical with two competing nouns -- Wikiproject and Squadron. The title doesn't have the same format as a thematic project like WP:WikiProject Anthropology. It's more like WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit or WP:Did you know which have a different style of title. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Misplaced Pages. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ResonantDis_tortion 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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