Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benjiboi (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 15 May 2009 (→Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussions: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.

view · edit 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 a media organization. The mention is in: James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists". Wall Street Journal. Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Misplaced Pages". New York Review of Books.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Template:Multidel

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 61

• WP:ARSMENUS

For articles listed for rescue consideration, see Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list

There are currently 718 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

Articles

Articles currently tagged for deletion

• Main page: Category: Articles for deletion

Articles currently proposed for deletion

• Main page: Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) Notability. Alleged WP:COI. Acerbic discussion. Counting merger discussions, a previous deletion, etc., looks closer to a 4th nomination. Sourcing was poorly done. I've fixed references and links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

• Misplaced Pages: Article Rescue Squadron - Biographies of living persons
• Article Rescue Squadron – BLP rescue volunteers

Articles with topics of unclear notability

• Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability – lists topics that are unclear regarding their notability.

Content

Files for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Files for discussion
  

Categories for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Templates for discussion
  

Redirects for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Redirects for discussion

Stub types for deletion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Stub types for deletion

Miscellany for deletion

• Main pages: Misplaced Pages: Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion

Search all deletion discussions

About deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Article alerts

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Article alerts

Recognition of efforts

Barnstars project

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

New idea to recognize efforts

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

Example

Recognition of embattled users

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages: ==Welcome== Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar 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 many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me. Need help? If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you have any questions at all, please . Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) {{Subst:User:Ikip/t}} The template signs your name for you. It is part of: Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) {{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}} Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Medals

ARS tools and possible tools discussion

AFD summaries

Candidates for Speed Deletion

Where do I go to make an alert?

Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page

Automatically adding references to articles

Did you know...

...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article 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 kudos 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 twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ARS project development

Wikiads

Newsletter

Mottos

WP:PRESERVE

Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{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 {{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? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• A Nobody had a similar welcome template that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes seems a good resource. -- Banjeboi 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. Schmidt, 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 just created. 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. -moritheil 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I already wrote User:Ikip/Del 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: User_talk:Otomo#An_article_you_created_maybe_deleted_soon:_Tools_which_can_help_you

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 web scrapper which takes all of the articles on WP:AFDT and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. Ikip (talk) 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. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. Ikip (talk) 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. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion of interest.

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deletion_is_to_be_a_last_resort 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. Jclemens (talk) 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? Ikip (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested to take this to Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? -- Banjeboi 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?

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. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 9 May 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?

1. WP:IINFO WP:INDISCRIMINATE "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.
2. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E "People notable only for one event". Used for any event, no matter how signifigant.

Ikip (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for WP:BLP1E, see my recent update to WP:OUTCOMES. :-) Jclemens (talk) 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. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a closely watched page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but I would presume that WT:BLP 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. Jclemens (talk) 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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 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 WP:BLP1E, be very careful about this, but you can almost always rewrite the article, disposing of the affectation of a biography. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, and after AMIB comments, I removed WP:Synth and WP:CRUFT. I still think that WP:IINFO is really abused though...Ikip (talk) 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! yandman 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack! Hoist by my own petard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 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! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean: WP:BLP1E? Ikip (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep thats the one. I dont yet have a seasoned ARS campaigners precision of expression :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 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.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been toying with a way of making templates, that instead of typing WP:BLP1E, you would type: {{WP:BLP1E}} and the name of the policy would be listed fully, with a link to the page. Ikip (talk) 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. OlYeller 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Is this all regarding the common outcomes page or something else? -- Banjeboi 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. Ikip (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOTPAPER (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 five pillars" pablo_hablo. 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• On WP:IINFO, 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 WP:BEANS". 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. Stifle (talk) 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 ? -- Banjeboi 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• How about Misplaced Pages:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information? Stifle (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Right tea and biscuits and let's have a calm chat

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.

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1: ARS should participate in non-article XfD discussions like other wikiprojects.

Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussions

May need some expansion/cleaning up, but this seems to summarise the different positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 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. Radiopathy •talk• 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. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to see the difs. I came here during Ikip'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 pointy than factual. Radiopathy •talk• 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The con section reads like an accusation, rather than a statement of fact. It's an accurate mirror of an accusation levelled at ARS, but that doesn't mean the point has been proven or is a given. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I felt that was problematic - perhaps something a little less absolute: "It has been suggested that...."? Edit freely. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Well meaning perhaps but this is just another, IMHO, abuse of community energy. The core question is can a Wikiproject be notified of policy and XfD discussion that may impact their work - the answer is "of course". We are seeking non-answers to non-problems. The real issue was with percieved canvassing, the reactions to that percieved canvassing and the implosion of age-old battles having rather little to do with ARS as a whole. If the notification messages are limited and NPOV then there is really no issue as long as no one over-reacts in any direction. I'm active in the LGBT project, regualrly posts are made concerning XfDs, RfDs and other bits of interests. We have thousnads of articles across concievable every genre and we regularly work with other specilist wikiprojects to effect the right decisions to benefit our readers. Do we agree with every policy? Hardly. But we do discuss them and how seriously to get involved and how we can assist on an issue. If posts to ARS are NPOV the issues, IMHO, would melt away. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• I don't personally think this is that much of an issue either, because people have always contacted ARS about XFDs, and most editors are usually pretty careful to distinguish actual rescue efforts from the occasional empty vote. But for the sake of closure, I think it's fair to present something like this to an independent group, so that we can get an answer and move on. Randomran (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have stated before that neutral notifications of discussions that fall within thz scope of the ARS are no problem. The problems I have are with non-neutral messages, or messages that are outside the scope (like policy discussions). Obviously, the most neutral message one can deliver at the ARS, and all that should be needed, is adding the rescue tag, which automatically adds the discussion to this talk page, the main page, the notification template many members have on their user page, and a category. But a section like "X is up for deletion. Is it worth putting the "rescue" tag on it?" is of course no problem either. Fram (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Same as the first proposal. Policy discussions that impact a project certainly are appropriate, its quite foolish to think any project would simply lockstep march along oblivious to decisions which all editors are encouraged to take part in. Even with the recent changes this one, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • But why would the opinion of the ARS be so relevant to warrant special notification of a discussion on WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, or merge discussions on a number of articles? What reason is there to single out this project for an invitation to participate in such debates? They have no special authority, are not specialized in these subjects, ... Individual editors are of course welcome to participate, and are aware of these discussions by the same means as any other eitor: but the project, as a project, should just enact the conclusions, not try to influence them. If a group of articles no longer is rescueable becaues of a policy change, so be it. If a group suddenly becomes rescueable because of a policy change, so be it. People here should know that such a change has occurred. But why should the ARS be invited as a group to join the discussion? Anyway, your comment and my reply belong with proposal #4, not with #2. Fram (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am confused, special notification? How is some editor posting on here, "hey there is a discussion currently about FICT" which a group maybe interested in, "special"? Is this any more "special" than the other wikiprojects which do the same thing? Ikip (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects don't explicitly exclude policy from their scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Special notification" is an editor singling out the ARS to come and join a policy discussion because apparently said editor suspects (correctly or incorrectly) that the ARS will support his more inclusionist-leaning opinion. There is no reason why the ARS should be notified of such a discussion. If a policy or guideline discussion is neutrally posted to all projects, then it is no "special notification". And if you or anyone wants an example, see the start of Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 28#Is it appropriate to put a rescue tag on a guideline page?. As has been said before: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more relevant for issue #4, but there are reasons ARS probably shouldn't get into policy-making. As noted above, ARS specifically states on its front page that it rescues articles through improvement, not policy or voting. This was meant to re-assure people who were worried that ARS would be tempted to take the easy way to save articles by lowering quality standards, rather than improving article quality. But IMO, a lot of it has to do with the recent recruitment drive, which isn't necessarily an act of bad faith, nor a problem in of itself. It just raises real concerns of what kind of discussion we're going to have when 300 people who share a common viewpoint are recruited to a project space and then linked to another talk page. Randomran (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. No, we don't exclude policy from our scope. The relevant sentence - The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. - was explicitly added due to rather vociferous allegations that this counters. Indeed ARS is not about casting !votes to keep or creating policies just so nothing gets deleted. To suggest this statement hereby excuses ARS from voting or engaging in policy discussions is simply wrong. Again, just like any other project, we will be involved in discussions that effect the work. The issue remains not n notification but in keeping those notes neutral. -- Banjeboi 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As for the recruitement drive ... I'm a quite active member of the LGBT project. If we sent a neutral invite to everyone who has a "pro"-LGBT userbox - for example "I support equal rights" or "I support same-sex marriage" - and avoided inviting those who have a userbox like "I oppose same-sex marriage", would this argument still hold up? I doubt that it would, IMHO, it woud be ideal if the newbies had more resources/training on how to conduct themselves but alas, we also cannot make them do anything. We all started somewhere but if there is a willingness to positively contribute I see ARS as helping those "recruited" "inclusionists" put their money where their mouth is. If they can hopefully learn not all tagged articles are worth rescuing and sometimes merge is a better solution - at least for now - then we all win. I don't expect this to happen overnight though either. This issue remains on the user-level so the AfD survey and a friendly template message ala why empty !votes suck may be a good resource -- Banjeboi 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comparison is helpful for the current issue. The problem is that people shouldn't be recruited to a project space based on their view on content, and then subsequently linked to discussions about content policy. I might agree with you that people shouldn't be recruited to a project space based on their view of gay marriage, and then linked to discussions about Misplaced Pages's policy on gay marriage. But Misplaced Pages doesn't have a policy on gay marriage, or any human right, and these questions are completely outside the scope of Misplaced Pages. The worst thing that a group of equal rights fanatics could do is work on an article about equal rights, and we have policies like WP:NPOV to prevent them from exerting undue influence. Tell me, what prevents a roster that's been assembled based entirely on their view of content -- deletionist or inclusionist or anti-trivia or pro-spoiler -- from exerting undue influence on content policy? Even at AFDs, such a content-specific roster would have trouble abusing blind !votes, because the closing admin could ignore arguments that under/overstate the article's quality. But there's no such check on that content-specific roster at a content policy discussion. The only thing I can think of is if such rosters were to be restrained from content policy discussions, but I'm open to other ideas. Randomran (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if we were to presume an "inclusionist"-heavy roster here - which I'm not sure I agree with as, again, this is a group that varies and participates in wildly different levels - there remains the second assertion resting upon the first that a notice here will suddenly sway the balance of discussion as to greatly influence policy. I remain unconvinced and my main point is that i see no future in the prospect of banning wikiprojects from being notified of XfD discussions. We don't keep or delete something because there was a lot of !votes one way or another. We keep or deleted based on policies and if that is falling afoul it needs to be addressed at AfD and with closers who are making bad closes. And we do have a check on all discussions - consensus. A similar discussion at the Wikicouncil was along the lines of which projects (as noted on a specific article talkpage) did more work on an article ergo had more ownership. As I poited out then many (most?) editors are in more than one project so is it really helpful to determine which project I'm editing on behalf of? The goal is improving the encyclopedia. Many editors simply don't sign up for any project and simply edit away. Again the only net difference is that some ARS members may participate and bring in their relevant experiences. In general it is far more preferable on any discussin to have more opinions expressed so the best decisions are more likely to be made. And statically speaking this bears fruit. Crowds, even with mixed levels of expertise generally make better decisions than a lone person. This proposal should likely also be closed because the community simply will never support that projects can't be notified of these discussions. The issue remains conduct of a limited few in response to what they saw as non-neutral postings of a few others. We are belabouring points that aren't going to go anywhere. -- Banjeboi 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'd be ready to drop this issue, just because I see an AFD closing admin as intelligent enough to dismiss the "strong keep: i don't see what people are complaining about" types of !votes in the absence of real article improvement. But I still think this is an issue we need closure on, and can't be closed unilaterally. Some of the other editors really disagree with you (and me) in good faith, and it's possible that independent people in the community will see the need to treat ARS as unique, since it truly is a unlike anything else in the project space. Randomran (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
        • We really aren't given any special anything. If any Wikiproject violates community policies then they will be called on it. This is not about ARS recruiting - we never did, that was one editor who acted on their own. This remains not about what ARS does/did but about specific editors posts and the over-reaction to those posts - also a user issues and arguably a civility issue. And I agree, if a XfD closer can't interpret !votes then that's an issue on those closers. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's rather pointy to load a proposal allegedly concerned about battleground issues with inflamaotry laguage and POV. At least keep it neutral. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a little pointy to simultaneously modify the arguments on both sides, and then claim the issue should be closed as a non-issue. Although WP:NPOV only applies to articles, this is a situation where the principle is still good: we represent both viewpoints in fair terms. I'm willing to work on the wording. But you have to be specific about what parts you find non-neutral. I hope the latest version gets us there. But if it doesn't, explain why, and we can try to deal with it. Randomran (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the removal of diffs, and I disagree with inserting caveats into the statement. You made those important changes again after Randomran rewrote the statement. I think the editor's membership in ARS should be mentioned and the scare quotes on inclusionist omitted, but I feel less strongly about these points. Randomran has restored his wording and diffs. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Randomran's assertion that each rewrite is distinct is accurate. I tried to get diffs to illustrate the evolution of each editor's proposed version, but there were too many intervening edits to show neatly. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I've tried not to simply restore the old version. I'm sincerely trying to be neutral. But letting one side's argument slip into the other side's is simply not a fair way to present both sides, nor is removing relevant diffs. Let me know what neutrality issues are outstanding, and let's try to collaborate to come up with a fair way to represent both sides. Don't just boldly cut down the other side's argument. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • It's rather hard to take any proposal seriously when it mischaracterizes the facts, makes sweping assumpings of bad faith and masquerades as concern. No need whatsoever to punch up the narrative with diffs as if the facts themselves aren't enough. This isn't a coutroom so the jury can await the evidence being presented regarding the background of alleged canvassing and recruitment. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Then explain how it mischaracterizes the facts in the "pro" argument, or explain it to me in a reply. I'm totally open to talking about this and making changes. But if you can't tell me what the problem is, I'm really just taking stabs in the dark, and I'd rather not waste my time anymore. Tell me what part is inaccurate, and I'll work on a wording that's accurate. Randomran (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
            • NPOV means we avoid undue weight - diffs aren't helpful unless your wikilawyering at ANI. We aren't trying to blame anyone as much as determine the core issues and move towards solutions. If you're gonna try to shame ARS for recruiting you should point out the editor acted on their own - "independent" - and that they were essentially cleared of wrongdoing. It also makes sense to show, since in theory this is about ARS, what ARS did in response and to clarify no evidence of any effect has been shown. In short even this version includes information that is unneeded. The basic question remains can ARS, like all other Wikiprojects, be notified of XfD's with the answer being "of course!" The rest is just spinning wheels and getting no where. It would be much more constructive to work on neutral and constructive solutions if the intent really is to be a part of helping ARS and Misplaced Pages as a whole. I was bold and turned it into one background statement instead of teh polarizes two sides argument. -- Banjeboi 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is always respected. No sense faning the flames of a fire that need not burn in the first place. Schmidt, 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close Proposal 2

This is another proposal that is interesting but also, IMHO, a waste of community energy. All Wikiprojects are notified of XfD, policy discussions, RfC's etc. This isn't changing and the issue remains keeping those notices neutral. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We know how you feel. But we're having an RFC because there's a legitimate good faith disagreement on this issue. Trying to make this decision unilaterally is barely more helpful than trying to make this decision by arguing back and forth. You have nothing to fear from an RFC of independent editors. Randomran (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And lo, we had one. A community RfC was held and independent admins helped close it affirming that indeed TfD and likely other XfDs were within ARS purvue. absoltely rediculous that you're entrenched on this. This issue has never been can ARS be notified but how to address non-neutral notifications. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Not all wikiprojects are notified of all these things, and in any case, they should only be contacted when they are in scope for the project. ARS is for AfD and (apparently, haven't seen a good example yet) for TfD: I can't really imagine it being for CfD, RfD or UfD (FfD at a stretch). A policy discussion like "should AfD be five or seven days" is directly relevant for the ARS and a neutral notification of it here is acceptable. A policy discussion of WP:NOT or something similar is not in the scope of the ARS and a notification here, no matter how neutral, is unacceptable. This belongs more with Proposal 4 than with 2, but since you used it as an argument here... Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You're arguing against an RfC that you particiapted in that didn't go your way. It affirmed TfD's and likely other XfDs were fine. Sorry you've just proven that this is only about disrupting ARS to prove a point because you don't like it. If it impacts a Wikiprojects work the Wikiproject should be able to quickly suss out what interest a discussion may hold. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I am replying to you, I am not "disrupting X to prove a point", I have not even argued that proposal 2 should stay open, I just replied to your irrelevant comments about this. While the RfC affirmed that TfD's were likely okay, the uninvolved comments also acknowledged that e.g. some examples would have been nice. I just reiterated this. It's very nice to argue that all XfD's are within thescope of the ARS, but it hasn't been shown how a content improvement action is going to impact a RfD or a CfD, nor can't I remember any TfD where any content was improved to save it. Fram (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • You may need to backtrack to reality a bit. No one was looking to actively incorporate TfD and the entire RfC was to address one editor's edit-warring to remove even the neutral link to a TfD. The RfC affirmed that TfDs were fine to be included in our scope. You and I may never agree and I see quibbling oh this one maybe, oh that won could never etc. as a collosal waste of energy. You see little value in ARS at TfD, the community disagrees with your assessment. The rest remains arguing RfC 2.0. I'm glad you seem to agree that this proposal as well is likely unneeded. -- Banjeboi 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • In fact, do we have a list of templates tagged for rescue in the past? I remember the template NYRepresentatives, listed at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6, where no improvements were made but Benjiboi and Ikip came along to !vote keep. The only other one I can find was the ridiculous (and also deleted) template CrapArticle. Fram (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No one has invested any energies into TfD and ARS but to assert the concept was fine. I see no need for a list at this time. -- Banjeboi 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Benjiboi. Ikip (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support closure per nom. Schmidt, 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Article Rescue Squadron can conduct itself like other wikiprojects.

Proposal 4: Article Rescue Squadron can be directly notified of other discussions, including policy talk pages

Seems to be the important one, although the other questions cannot be ignored - partly adapted from Randomeran's suggestion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this addition. I suspect this is the most contentious issue. The others aren't so bad: XfD's are not a vote, and ARS usually succeeds on the merits of their improvements to an article. But this one is trickier. Either way, I'm comfortable working out a phrasing that presents both sides of the issue, and then puts it to a fresh group of editors. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Zero for four I'm afraid. This one too seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. I think the real question you're looking for is how can ARS neutrally and within community standards handle posts that sem to be violating canvassing? This has been answered a few times and the correct answer is not deleting anything. If something is waaay over the top I could see adding a {{hat}} and {{hab}} and restating the request neutrally but in my experience none of that was really needed. If anything deserves closer community-wide scrutiny it would be the reaction to perceived canvassing threads and an overly-aggressive stance of mischaracterizing this entire project thereby turning this very talkpage into a battlefield. Nothing at WP:Canvass suggests we pillory people and break out the pitchforks against a monster. Our civility policies are pretty clear we don't do this. Let's pretend those who post notifications here have rather good intentions. The rest is just working to see that those notices are neutral. This really hasn't been that big of an issue until the re-actions became a bit over-heated. Does anybody seriously think you're going to stop ARS, get the project deleted? Stop notifications of other discussions, etc.? It's really not. What remains then is for the very few people who have been posting the "alarming" posts to craft neutral messages and for those who have been raising alarms to really look at if there is any noticable damage if a not is non-NPOV, if so, simply state, this needs to be refactored or otherwise mitigated to ease neutrality concerns. You really don't need the community to spell this out. Likewise we're not about to topic ban anyone from here who is willing to modify their approach towards working with other editors here. I really don't see a need for any RfCs at the moment nor a strong need to elect or appoint one or more people to police or patrol or otherwise watch over this page and project. We will always have newbies who will make mistakes and our mandate is to help them. I would be very embarrassed if they were treated hostily instead bacause they were honestly just trying to save anarticle they felt was worth keeping. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason you think this is a colossal waste of energy is probably because you don't think there's a problem. Obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree, or else this discussion wouldn't have started in the first place. I think you should be entitled to present this as a non-problem, and I think you should do your best to present it as such. But the complaints won't go away just because you declare it a non-problem. It will take a group of independent editors say these four issues are non-problems (or that any one of them are indeed problems, and need to be addressed). Nobody is trying to stop ARS from improving articles, or get ARS deleted, or even get anyone in trouble. It's just about keeping ARS on task, and there are legitimate disagreements about what that task is. That's what an RFC will accomplish. After that, there won't be much to argue about. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi, I'm afraid as I've worked through reading the disputes on this page, I can see that you don't perceive there to be a problem. Unfortunately, that is always the nature of a dispute - one side thinks an action is appropriate, so can't understand why the other side is kicking up a fuss. Unfortunately, there is a dispute over these points, and unless we get our heads out of the sand, you guys will be going around and around in circles over them. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I disagree with your recent use of {{hat}}/{{hab}} to collapse active discussions. You've made your objections to the proposals known. Maybe you could ask Fritzpoll or a neutral uninvolved admin to effect any early closes? Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, my opinion on this is: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it. I think the problem stems from the fact that many self-selected ARS participants want to do both, and their actions with respect to the latter are confused by some as being ARS-sanctioned. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More that ARS is being used as a springboard for the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no more than it's being used by deletionists to distract participants from actually fixing articles, it would seem. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do refrain from tossing off accusations of bad faith or conspiracy if you can't back them up. Not everything undertaken in good faith is a good idea or will have good results, and conversely not everything with bad results was undertaken in bad faith.

If you think anyone is here to purposefully disrupt things, kindly name names and explain how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of ARS working to change policies so that more articles are kept. I see individual editors invested in discussions that certainly may effect those like the recently created bilateral blah-de-da taskforce that will help find a path forward for hundreds of related articles. These types of discussions always go on and it's rather odd to think this or any wikiproject wouldn't be somewhat interested in discussions that affect the work they do. If we are working on, for instance, five bilateral blah-de-da articles and a task force is discussing how to re-organize those articles, it certainly makes sense to bring oursleves up to date on those discussions. Likewise when we had dozens of articles on minor league sports teams and no notability guideline. I think we suggested that discussing if a guideline should exist would make sense. Did we create, run and vote keep everything, hardly. We just tried to address each article on it's own merits because no guideline did exist. We also coached the main editor in soem possible routes forward so they wouldn't end up creating 20-30 articles that were also then mostly deleted. Frankly I see us as often bringing dispassionate editors to subjects they would likely never touch otherwise - I personally have little to no interest in most sports subjects - so helping offer input (here is what policy states, here are options, what makes sense?) can be quite helpful. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record - this again is not can a project be notified issue but how should non-NPOV notifications be effectively handled. I think this section should also close as being repetitious to many previous discussions. Everyone agrees that notifications should be NPOV. No one will get support that projects can't be notified. What remains is how should any project deal with non-NPOV messages. This doesn't require an RfC at all. Seems like some civil and thoughtful suggestion should be discussed that would apply to all projects. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, it might be different if ARS were dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. But what we have now is a group that was assembled by recruiting 300 people with specific views on content and then linking them to content policy discussions. It's pretty obvious what will happen when people get an invite because "you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability", and then they are linked about discussions about notability guidelines. But in principle, this selective-recruitment and discussion-linking shouldn't happen for any content viewpoint and policy. Again, an invite based on a viewpoint isn't polarizing in of itself, but doing that hundreds of times and linking them to a relevant policy discussion is problematic. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually ARS is dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. with the qualifier "on notable subjects". You are presuming that those who work on tagged articles are members and that everyone (or most) were recruited. I wasn't and this project was plenty busy before I showed up. One can theorize that there is some net effect but personally I've not seen any major upswing in participation, articles tagged or discussions swayed greatly and certainly not in any cohesive or organized effort. In fact when the invite tag was first employed it seemed a bit non-neutral and was replaced by a neutral one. That's pretty much what has happened every time something came along that seemed problematic. Getting back on point - any project can be notified of discussion impacting their work. Notices should be kept brief and NPOV. for those that wish to ascribe to inclusionism there is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion; likewise Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion may befit those who see a calling to removing items. ARS is neither and has rebuffed either POV. If another seemingly well-intended editor mass invited a pile of editors who ascribed to deletionism ARS would not work to remove them, shame them, coerce or otherwise marginalize them. It is our job as Wikipedians to welcome them. We don't pin badges on anyone accept a welcome tag if they sign up as members. Personally I deal with so many editors and articles I'm rather forced to just treat everything on a case by case basis. Assess it, act accordingly and move on. My experience with some of the questionable postings is that I'm rather immune to pleas of please keep my article or those meanines are trying to delete ____. I think other ARS folks may be along the same lines. Meh, whatever, I'll poke in and see if I can offer anything. We simply aren't to be discounted as the army of like-minded inclusionists as many of these pointy threads would have anyone believe. Are some members? Likely, but I really don't care if they are doing ARS work and helping improve articles. Am I in any way interested in a witch hunt? No. We have the survey idea which seems to be showing support. If we a figure a way to make it happen it could be repeated in a few months then looked at to see if there are repeaters. The goal remains to help editors do better. This proposal can also be ended, IMHO, per WP:Snow. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Snow closing a discussion because only you say so seems a little...off. I think this is the most likely to end up at RfC Fritzpoll (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I really have anything new to say, and I don't think I'm going to persuade you. I'll just say that I think you understate the effect of recruiting 300 people with inclusionist templates. Regardless of how neutrally the invite was phrased, the invites were sent purely to build a roster of people with a specific content view. That bias doesn't really affect article improvement, so I actually agree with you on that much. Regardless of peoples' viewpoint on content, they'll either improve the article to make it meet our guidelines, or they won't. The problem is when a roster narrowly built upon a specific content view is invited to craft our content policy. Not just because of what it means every time that ARS's new roster talks policy, but because of what it means if other content viewpoints organize a roster in the same way. We would essentially have armies and generals, and thus endless wars. You might not see that as legitimate problem, but other people do, including me. So let's put that question to the community. Worst thing that happens is I'm wrong, and there's no problem, and clearly state ARS's new scope. Even though it wouldn't be the result I want, that would be good for everyone because we can get closure, and people will be able to leave each other alone. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

First off you keep misleading that we recruited 300 people. We didn't recruit anyone, a sole editor did. It was agreed that any editor could recruit to any Wikiproject but in response we created a neutral ARS invite template. There is no evidence that the recruitment has had any net effect on discussions and ARS never took place in a recruitment drive. Then we build on this wobbly premise - y'know that all those who are ARS members would be swayed to an inclusionist POV - that these now converted ARS talkpage watchers will suddenly show up and all vote keep or whatever the inclusionist POV on some policy discussion and further that that won't be quickly dismissed as empty votes if that's all they are. ARS scope hasn't grown or even changed - the last RfC simply clarified that TfD (and likely other XfDs) were officially ok. This unfounded worry that POV armies of policy fighters will assembly and rise up is rather pointy and seems if it were sent to any RfC it wouldn't mention ARS at all. We are not a unique Wikiproject just one that a handful of editors strongly object to because of thier disdain against all things "inclusionist" and their concern that ARS is swaying toward some POV because of one editors' work. Again this remains a user conduct issue that most editors are simply not that troubled over. No RfC is needed to address these issues. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who did it, it only matters that the recruitment drive happened, and it does have an impact. And again, if ARS is being singled out for being inclusionist, it's being singled out in the same way that any group with such a viewpoint-specific recruiting drive should be singled out. It's not up to either of us to decide if it's okay. That's why we're having the RFC. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It does matter to clarify that ARS never sanctioned a recruitment drive and this was undertaken by one editor - who, when blocked for it, was unblocked as no canvassing was found to have occurred. No impact or harm has shown to have occurred either. Discussion and XfD are not votes but a consensus process. Volume of votes, in theory that ARS has done any block voting, may have an impact but more likely quality of discussion will be teh greater measure. Even policy decisions that are flawed are, in theory, amended and clarified to fix areas that need correcting. Misplaced Pages is an organic project - it changes and grows. If a policy is great one year and then needs modificatins we do so. I've yet to see a case where ARS either block voted or otherwise negatively impacted some discussion bringing harm to the encyclopedia and this entire thread is one massive pile of assuming bad faith. If Ikip sucessfully recruited some inclusionists as far as i can tell the worst thing that would happen is they waste some energy casting empty !votes. guess what? That was happening before ARS ever existed and would happen regardless if we were here. The likely net result is encyclopedic content will more likely be kept in some form. I see that as a good thing. Can we move on now to finding actual solutions addressing the actual concerns? -- Banjeboi 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive517#Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip. You are correct that there was no consensus for administrator action against Ikip at that time. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• As with Proposal 2, I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. The editing of the Pro section is fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Revision which neutralizes the context. Throwing gas on an ember is not WP:NPOV, however, dousing the spark is. Schmidt, 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If we are genuinely trying to find solutions then we should do so neutrally. Both pro and con verbiage should remian neutral. -- Banjeboi 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Once again, I think we should work to represent both sides fairly. But to the degree we respect neutrality, it's to present both sides of the argument fairly, to the degree that they reflect the actual facts and disagreement. I've altered it once again to try to be more neutral, and present both sides. But if there are any outstanding issues, it would be helpful to know what they are. I'd happily rewrite it myself, and think that would be more productive than the "pro" side writing the arguments for both sides. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I wrote a detailed comment above that applies to this section also. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • NPOV is rather non-negotiable. Focussing on non-issues doesn't help address real concerns. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I think it's unfair that you get to rephrase the issue, and then argue that it's a non-issue that should not even be discussed. NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, but if you want to use it, I think you're misinterpreting it:
          • "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."
        • There is no issue without multiple conflicting perspectives, is the first thing. If both the pro and con argument agree "there is no issue", then there will be no issue. So to the extent that the perspectives conflict, I'm trying to verify them with diffs. You're entitled to interpret those diffs in a way that there is no problem, no systemic bias in ARS, no risk of further battleground activity if other project spaces follow suit. But you're not entitled to just remove the argument that there's a problem in order to assert "there is no problem".
        • I'm willing to work on the "con" argument if you can offer specific constructive criticisms. Randomran (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

30K of copy-pasting from stale discussions

Time to open the RfC

Right, I think we have enough discussion here to establish opening an RfC on Proposals 2 and 4. I'm not sure about the status of Proposal 1 since it has been reopened, but a prior RfC has just concluded. I'd suggest doing the RfC on an ARS subpage at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/RfC May 2009 or similar, listing at WP:RFC, and notifying at WP:VPP and on WP:CENT as well as including a link on this page. I'd establish that there is no need for individual editors to be contacted on this - for a neutral outside view, we need to not notify any individual directly. After a week or two, we can ask a neutral admin (not me, I hasten to add) to close the discussion on the RfC and see what the consensus is. That is, not a poll, although a straw poll format might be adopted. Any thoughts before I go ahead and do this? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed This remains another disruption to this Wikiproject and needs to stop. POV against inclusionism is fine on individual userpages but thi sWikiproject remains neutral welcoming all editors. If you can't see that targetting ARS in this fashion is divisive then I see pushing for malformed RfC's as more disruption. The issue has always been about specific editor's conduct. The few who engaged in posting non-neutral messages and those who acted rather incivilly towards them. Wasting the community energy on - yet another - RfC is not a constructive way forward and none of the proposals addressed the core issue. Likewise an RfC singling out any Wikiproject is doomed to failure. We don't make special rules as such. We have policies that notices should be neutral. We have policies on civility. If you want to discuss if Wikiprojects can be notified of policy discussion (hint: the answer is yes) you can ask at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council if an RfC would be an appropriate use of energy on this. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to Benjiboi: ARS simply closing the issue is not really fair, and won't really work. The issue will continue to rise every time a notice is posted, and part of the goal here is to get closure. If this RFC is "doomed to failure", then let it fail on its own merits in front of an independent group of Wikipedians. But there's a reasonable basis to treat ARS as something other than "just another Wikiproject", especially in light of its scope as it is defined on the main page, and the recent recruiting tactics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
    • Well continually harassing any Wikiproject is also unfair. You can drop the recruiting accusation as that was a single independent editor and steps were taken to ensure a neutral invite template representing the group was created. ARS has been extremely patient with a small group of editors disrupting and making pointy comments and imposing their view on what this project should or should not do. If any of this had been handled civilly and neutrally we would only be discussing constructive solutions. Instead a rather pointy RfC in various incarnations has been posited - each one missing the entire core concern and suggesting that ARS as a group is responsible for a few members actions and therefore we all must pay dearly by entertaining this charade of accusations. Non-neutral posts have always been and always will be posted by folks innocently or not to various Wikiprojects. We should handle them civilly per policy. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Start handling them at all, and you would have a point. I have not disrupted the project, I have not made pointy comments, and I have not imposed my view: I have raised my views and objections here, out in the open, for everyone to see and discuss. You have asked to take canvassing concerns up with the users involved on their talk page, not here. Even though I considered that a bad idea, I treid it out, only to be lambasted here as an uncivil editor for it. I have tried to discuss things civilly and neutrally, but you have not responded in kind, ignoring the problems and accusing me repeatedly of creating drama. If no members of the ARs (or at least those active on this talk page) act against misuse of the project, then that brings the project into disrepute, despite their good work in saving articles. If on the other hand those people who do point out these problems get vilified (both those doing this regularly, and people who come along once, give their opinion, and get nearly booed away), then the impression of the ARS as a closed community of like-minded editors with a larger agenda than what is displayed on the project page gets only stronger. But could you explain how we all "must pay dearly"? No one is obliged to post here, to spend their time here, or to react to all this. I do it of my own free will, and I hope it's the same for you. Your point is made clear, and continuing discussion is interesting, but not necessary to get it across, so if you feel so badly about it, just do something else. Fram (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I appreciate Fritzpoll trying to treat both sides fairly and manage this. The only thing I'd add is give us a couple of days to get closure on issue 1, because I'm not sure it was really re-opened for any good reason. Also, I'd add that we really don't need to hear from AMiB and the other people who participated in the AN/Is against ikip, and we don't really need to hear from ARS either. We know how they feel. Let's see how this looks to neutral outside observers. The last thing I'd want is to watch the ARS turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

God lord Randomran, you are not neutral this, you never have been. Stop saying you are. Everytime I explain why you are not neutral you accuse me of bad faith. Do we need this drama reapeated here again? Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I must agree a bit with Ikip here. ARS detractors have turned this talkpage into the very toxic battleground that is repeatedly suggested as a concern. Is it any wonder that those of us who have invested energy into improving the work we do are quite over the limit of tolerance on this? Really, if you want to help rescue content please do that, if you don't then maybe one of the hundreds of other WP:Wikiprojects will suit your interestes better. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as well as if anything, it is time to continue rescuing articles! Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unneccessary RFC, one which acts to bring editors to a battleground where none need exist. Disruption of the project is to be avoided. Schmidt, 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment for what it's worth, the RFC shouldn't involve any of us here. So we can already get back to editing articles while a group of independent, unaffiliated editors deal with it. When the RFC finishes, so will the drama. There's something to be said for getting someone neutral to sign off on whether or not there's a problem. There is no value to preventing a good faith discussion from taking place. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This is silly that the members of a project should not be involved in the RFC of the project. Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ditto. That's rather laughable that a RfC wanting to sanction ARS in some way would be launched yet some ARS members would be disinvited. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There are problems with the ARS (mainly with how it is used by some editors, and how most other regulars don't see a problem with these attempts, even if they aren't influenced by them) which taint their good work in rescuing content (articles, no idea if anything else has ever been rescued). The problems this project (or some of the most vocal editors of it) has with scrutiny (as evidenced by the opposition to this RfC, and the suggestions made earlier to ban a critic from this page and to remove all discussions of canvassing, without adressing the canvassing itself) is evidence of it becoming a group which excludes itself from the normal workings of the encyclopedia as a collaborative effort and tries to suppress all dissenting viewpoints. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That is your POV and I believe it is at least slightly off. No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK or that ARS would have approved the recruiting that took place. And no one is suggesting that the issues can't be addressed in a civil and constructive manner. This simply isn't the way to do it. Any concerns of a few editors "taint"ing ARS' "good work" pale compared to the negative tainting of ARS accross multiple forums and the massive disruption to our work here. The only reason that ARS critic was being considered for a ban was behavior, not for criticism. Constructive efforts to address canvassing have actually been underway offline as ARS' own talkpage was turned into a battleground by a handful of critics. No one has suggested that ARS be treated any special or different from other Wikiprojects except by those very same critics who seem to think this Wikiproject should be banned in some way from XfD or policy discussions etc. That we oppose dissenting viepoints is rather laughable as well. Ikips voluminous suggestions have a reasonable success rate but we don't follow them or anyone else's POV lockstep at all. If it' a good idea and may help it is considered and quite a few proposals have positiviely impacted Misplaced Pages in addition to the hundreds of rescues we've been involved in. The only thing keeping us from implementing more at this point is that very same group of editors who seem determined to make a much bigger deal out of a handful(?) of rather non-neutral posts or other posts they deemed as canvassing. I'm glad we've recorded all these posts in one place so we have them for future reference. Sadly it seems fairly obvious that no matter what ARS does as a group there will be detractors anxious to find fault rather then work toward equitable solutions that remain civil and neutral. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK", but no one is taking action against it or even recognising that some posts here were pure canvassing. And no one has yet shown that they can address the problem in a civil and constructive way, all I have seen is shooting at the messenger, either for discussing it here ("drama", "bullying", "public shaming"), or for discussing it with the editor directly ("uncivil"!). I have been asked repeatedly to join another wikiproject, giving strongly the impression that I am not welcome here. Removal of canvassing posts is not allowed: discussion of canvassing posts is not allowed. All criticism is considered "drama", even when it is a perfectly normal suggestion to change the haphazard manual way of archiving to an automated one, which met with the approval of most people. When other wikiprojects are canvassed to join a policy discussion, that gets serious disapproval as well. When wikiprojects are asked to join a policy discussion that is outside the scope of the project, things get even worse.
      • (sigh) Again, just because ARS members didn't break out buckets of boiling oil and whacking sticks to punish poor editing decisions doesn't mean some grand green light was lit. I would say that it was better to ignore the posts or respond to the core issue than to edit war and blow any of them way beyond porportion. And actually only those pushing for ARS-wide scope and sanction RfC's are demonstarting they are unable to address the issues civilly. Just because ARS members don't over-react the same way the critics do doesn't mean there isn't concern but we have looked to making constructive efforts while those opposed to ARS have worked to make this talkpage a battleground. You seem to ignore efforts to make constructive changes and only want to belabour an issue that really doesn't seem to be an ARS issue at all. it may be a user issue. And the rather hostile re-actions have been a civility issue but those too have dissipated. And now we're rehashing other stale issues seemingly without any need. The archiving again? I've agreed to let thread stale for a week even if they seem dead, that was your timing for an autobot. Please don't pretend that ARS has to change to meet your needs to see pages of pointy circular discussions when it is only serving to disrupt this project. We added a search mechanism for your claim you somehow couldn't find something. Up until this page being turned into a battleground items were archived chronologically roughly by stale date. We didn't need any other method. If your intent is to continue to argue and disparage seemingly everything we do or don't do perhaps finding or creating another wikiproject would be in everyone's best interest. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Benjiboi, if you and the others had adressed the canvassing posts when they occurred, all this could have been avoided. But you are still blaming the messenger instead of tackling the underlying issue. You didn't need to defend all canvassers with the most spurious of arguments (e.g. labelling them incorrectly as newbies, when they were well established experienced editors who started editing in 2005 or 2006), you could have just as easily continued rescuing articles. No one is stopping you from doing that but yourself. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not convinced that had edit-warring not ensued that we wouldn't have addressed the concerns. If someone posts "Please help protect this policy from being deleted" or whatever, the correct response is to civilly work with that editor to either refactor or possibly hat the note so that instead a neutral message is conveyed; and work to help them see that future messages should be neutral as well. Those criticizing ARS, are blaming this group for having posts appear on our talkpage while simultaneously edit-warring and behaving reprehensibly toward all concerned. These proposals all miss the mark. This issue has never been about scope as that hasn't changed and is being used as a red herring, IMHO, it's only been about non-neutral notifications. And, no, it matters not whether it's a newby or experienced editor, our civility policies don't encurage less civil behaviours for certain users. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • You may not be convinced, but in most cases, people here did not even recognise that there were problems with the canvassing posts. It takes two to edit-war, by the way, so don't blame that on the critics alone. As for "behaving reprehensibly", I don't feel that I have acted in such a way. And the matter is also about scope, as evidenced by the discussion I had with Ikip on this pages before this current RFC: talk page posts here are appropriate when they are neutral and in scope: a neutral message about e.g. a policy change is still an attempt to skew process by contacting a selected group of editors. It does not matter if such posts actually have that result or not, the posting in itself is wrong (misguided or deliberate), and that should be adressed. Examples of edits from this year by some of the most active members of the project: a post like "This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Misplaced Pages:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission." is an attempt to get like-minded editors to join a policy discussion, not to save any articles. Never mind an edit like "I agree with Dream Focus and A Nobody. I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This is not about saving articles which could meet our guidelines and policies with some work, but about rallying editors to change the guidelines and policies so that articles which are now delete-worthy can be kept anyway. Fram (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE the issues above have gotten less and less urgent as the days have goes on. Ikip (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop shouting? You did it in dozens of AFD's recently, you do it here as well. It is not helpful. As for the issues being urgent or not: they are recurring, sometimes in rapid succession, sometimes dormant for a while. Fram (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment re: independent feedback You are involved. Both sides are. Both sides are writing the arguments. Everyone who is discussing this right now knows how everyone feels, and there is no value to hearing anything beyond what is contained in the RFC arguments above. Moreover, this RFC isn't going to lead to a sanction. It's going to get an independent opinion, which is what this discussion has sorely been lacking. You may not even respect that independent opinion, but at least it will give us some sense of the next step. I'm not sure why people are so afraid of a neutral process. There is literally no value to repeating the same lengthy back-and-forth in front of a frustrated and confused audience. We need a third-opinion, and at this point I hardly care what that third-opinion is so long as it can provide some closure to this issue, and give both sides a sense that they were heard. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a neutral process and it is only serving to further smear ARS as a "source of concern" and disrupt our work. Neutral opinions are well established that (i) Wikiprojects are certainly allowed to have neutral notifications of XfD and policy et al discussions, (ii) that canvassing is discouraged, (iii) that ARS never canvassed, recruited, enabled canvassing or encourages vote-staking, etc. In fact, evidence contradicts all those assertions. (iv) That civility issues are policy and trump guidelines, even if you believe someone is violating a guideline our policies mandate you act civilly to resolve the issues. That seems to have been missing here. (v) A strong record of ARS working to ensure neutrality in all our project space neither condeming or condoning inclusionism/deletionism and instead focussing on the clean-up work. (vi) No credible evidence of ARS violating any policies has been shown, ever. The likely result of any RfC is that ARS will grow in membership and effectiveness. It's happenned everytime someone has tried to delete the project or our template. I see this RfC attempt as more of the same and realistically this is how I would expect the RfC to go. Accusations galore refuted by factual evidence. Acknowledgement that all Wikiprojects should have the same standards of conduct; they aren't responsible for independent actions of members and all are responsible for their own edits. Some - rather minor - alleged canvassing incidents were blown waaay out of porportiom and, as always, ARS members sought constructive and neutral solutions to move forward regardless of the various agendas at play. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Neutral opinions haven't said that ARS is merely another Wikiproject, that it's scope is about discussion rather than article improvement, or that the recent recruitment drive hasn't made ARS systemically more inclusionist. And this isn't about blame, this is about preventing polarized discussions. Even if you disagree, you have to concede that this disagreement is in good faith for us to be able to move forward. The only way the disagreement will be resolved is if an independent group of editors look at it. If it just descends into another battleground between ARS and its critics, no neutral perspective will be found, and we'll have to make further efforts at dispute resolution. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• What are the plans for presentation of evidence? Will it be limited to diffs in the argument statements? I realize that pointing out specific discussions as possibly influenced is likely to go over poorly. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If an RfC happens it will likely not need any diffs as much as a concerted effort to find neutral and constructive solutions. Dredging up past "examples" becomes pointy in and of itself. We already have policies and guidelines galore to help guide any discussions, no need to reinvent them. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason specifically to restrict anyone from commenting - after all, the summaries require some evidence or statements from both sides. This is also not about sanctioning ARS - I don't know where that impression comes from. It is about asking a question on which individuals here are not agreed, and getting some outside feedback. I don't see any of the proposals as being sanctions - and an RfC cannot make sanctions on any individual or group anyway: it acts in a purely advisory capacity. As to the issue of urgency, I don't really see the issues dying away in the medium term. The best remedies are those that prevent conflict, rather than waiting for a situation to develop again. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The only "situation" is a non-neutral posting, so as long as there are not over-reactions again there really shouldn't be any recurrance. These RfCs are all about sanctioning ARS or singling us out among all other Wikiprojects as not being able to participate in XfD and policiy discussions et al. That's really all these are about and why they are fundamentally flawed and doomed to waste even more community energy. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, given that I wrote them, I can only object that you are interpreting my intentions as negative with no basis for doing so. These are simply questions of scope - the fact that there are people here disagreeing (I have little opinion on the topic) suggests that it is best to settle the issues of scope. I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but you misunderstand the purpose of a Request for Comment in this context. Whilst an RfC on a User almost always is an effort to seek sanction (although neer able to, since RfC doesn't have that purpose) an RfC in this context is literally that. I am confused - if the point is so obvious, then why worry about people dropping in to agree with you? Talking about a "waste of time" is unhelpful, since there are obviously people who don't feel this is a waste. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support — This page has rolled-along far enough that the issue needs sorting at a higher level. Personally, I think this project is a solution in search of a problem. Sure, some folks here have improved articles, which is appreciated, but the coupling with AfD is inappropriate; it inherently has a confounding effect on those discussions. Editors intent on improving articles don't need an AfD or a {{rescue}} tag as motivation; just go improve something. There are, of course, other issues with the project and some involved with it. Jack Merridew 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TLDR. Aren't there enough of these rambling talking shops already? Just about every page connected with deletion or fiction seems to attract the usual suspects to go on and on at inordinate length but little useful purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How do any of those things apply here? WP:CREEP is about not intoducing unnecessary rules, which this isn't - it's a feedback process. WP:NOTFORUM is an aspect of OR - how is this original research? And WP:TLDR isn't a reason not to discuss issues. If the ARS members don't want to conduct an RfC, and want to isolate themselves from the community's opinion, they should let us know. I am only here to try to help, and am baffled at the turnaround of views on the holding of an RfC from only a couple of days ago. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

" If the ARS members don't want to conduct an RfC, and want to isolate themselves from the community's opinion, they should let us know" that is a little unfair. Just because some members don't want to conduct a RFC does not necesarily mean we want to isolate ourselves from the community opinion.

WP:CREEP applies because it would be applying more rules on a wikiproject, were none existed before. The other acronyms I am unfamilar with. Ikip (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Then let's get the community's opinion. The community can't sanction anyone where no bad conduct is alleged. They'd be providing a neutral and independent opinion on a practice, and we'd decide how to deal with that practice based on that opinion, but it wouldn't mean anyone would get in trouble. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP is applicable in that the RfC seems intended to concern itself with developing rules of behaviour for this project. We don't need such rules - we have too many rules already and making rules is not our business per WP:NOTLAW which is policy. This brings us to WP:NOTFORUM which clearly states that we should "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." The proposed RfC is not about creating the encyclopaedia - it's about developing rules. So that's two policies we'd be breaking. As for WP:TLDR, other ways of putting it are "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" and "don't get me started!". We should not suppose that the RfC would be one-way traffic or a brief exchange of pleasantries. It would, of course, be an interminable back-and-forth which would do nothing to improve our tempers or, more importantly, the encyclopaedia. To summarise, thanks but no thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• We already have an interminable back-and-forth. If one side -- any side -- tries to unilaterally decide what's appropriate, then this will continue to be an interminable back-and-forth. Getting an independent set of editors to look at the situation and sign off on it would at least give us a third-opinion, and maybe allow us to settle this once and for all. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. We are not a wikiproject

1. Response one: #South Park experts
2. 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?
3. Response three: the only difference is we are not a wikiproject in name.

Ikip (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re 2: You might want to have a look at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 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. Jclemens (talk) 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 repeatedly refuted by editors -- across the inclusion spectrum by the way -- who pointed out two reasons why ARS was not an inclusionist lobby group:
  1. The project was confined in scope to improving articles tagged for deletion. (Which everyone agreed with.)
  2. 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 first is that you contacted around three hundred editors who had inclusionist templates and asked them to join ARS. 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.) Randomran (talk) 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. I would appreciate the same courtesy .

Third, RE: "Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too"

I don't blame you for saying you are neutral, it makes your credibilty stronger to truly uninvoled editors.

WP:FICT was a project which Radorman was heavily involved with and supported. During the WP:FICT WP:RFC I notified several article talk pages that their was a RFC, with a neutral message. I took the unprecendented step of getting pre-approval from two admins before posting the message. WP:FICT had a direct effect on 25% of wikipedia, it would have deleted or merged thousands of articles. Ultimately WP:FICT failed for the third time.

Randorman, your comments here and on my talk page remind me of this very igenous RFC posting all over again. Ikip (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious - Ikip, what does "lessen the scope of Nobility" mean?

laterOh, you've deleted it already. It's here: Pixelface is an editor who has attempted to lessen the scope of Nobility as Randomran attempts to increase it.

Just wondering what exactly you're implying re Randomran and, more importantly, why it would have any bearing on this discussion. pablo_hablo. 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, a little disengous Pablomismo, I decided this was not relevant, and removed it on 18:52, 10 May 2009.

You post 22 minutes later at 19:14, 10 May 2009, when the sentence was long gone. At 19:41, 10 May 2009 you post the "later" comment. Ikip (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ikip, you need to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. This is about the function of ARS. For the record, you misstate my view on notability, because I've tried to reduce it, expand it, and keep it the same at different times on different issues. You also misstate my role at WP:FICT, where I spent most of my time mediatinng between inclusionists and deletionists because I support reducing the scope of notability in specific cases, such as fiction. But most of all, bringing it up is completely irrelevant. I'd feel the exact same way if AMiB contacted 200 deletionists to join some Misplaced Pages space, and then other people started linking to various policy discussions. Not that it's an act in bad faith, but it's an act that at best will accidentally disrupt Misplaced Pages and turn it into a battleground. I don't want to see either side "arming up", and the truth is that if ARS is allowed to do this, it won't be long before the other side arms up too. Then we'll never get anywhere.

The same is true if you try to make this about peoples' views of inclusion or deletion. We'll never get anywhere. You have other inclusionists who are telling you that it would be better if ARS focused on just articles, and you have deletionists who say to let this go. This is a legitimate area of disagreement. An indepenent RFC will allow us to settle the issue, without getting into the heated and accusatory stuff that other editors were throwing at you. This isn't about your viewpoint, my viewpoint, or even whether anyone broke any rules. It's about the appropriate role of ARS, knowing that the recruitment is what it is. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are absolutely right; by the time I had read the lengthy Rfc that you linked you had already deleted that comment, and I didn't notice it was gone. I don't think that you could call that disengous, however (well you could, but I wouldn't). pablo_hablo. 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, if you keep saying something long enough will people start believing it? I never accused you of bad faith. You stated that you wanted to explore the history of this page, well, our history and how you came here is part of how others can understand the full situation. Explain this is not bad faith. Bad faith is accusing an editor of this. It troubles me when this is a case of hyprocricy and attempts at censorship. Ikip (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you used words like "hypocrisy" and "conflict of interest". You examined my claim that I'm neither an inclusionist (like you) or deletionist (like AMiB), and offered false statements that I supported a proposal to delete more fiction articles than are currently deleted under the WP:GNG. I keep trying to talk about the appropriateness of certain recruiting-and-discussion tactics -- regardless of whether these tactics are employed by deletionists or inclusionists -- and you keep suggesting that this is secretly an effort to target your content viewpoint. To me, that seems like you're accusing a lot of people of bad faith. But maybe we're just on the wrong foot, and need to get back on the right one.

1. Is the pending RFC totally hypocritical, or do some people believe in good faith that the scope of ARS is unique and fundamentally different from a WikiProject?
2. Is the pending RFC about whether selective-recruitment followed by discussion-linking should be stopped, or is it secretly an effort to hamstring people based on their views of article content?

There are answers to both questions that assume good faith, and there are answers that don't. If you want to, you can clear that up right now. Randomran (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate this thrown-to-the-wolves nonsense. There is not a spectrum of "inclusionism" and "deletionism" on which I am one end. About the only bold position I've struck is on campaigning in contentious discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No wolves. I'm just pointing out you and I have clashed based on content viewpoint too, and your content standards are stricter than mine. That is, I'm not aligned with either you or ikip. This is a situation where I share some of your criticisms about behavior, though, and think we can address it without being accusatory or harsh. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 15 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". --BlueSquadronRaven 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• It also has an unlimited scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Counterexample: Misplaced Pages:Cleanup Taskforce. 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. Uncle G (talk) 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. Radiopathy •talk• 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Another counter-example is the Orphan project. There's no case to answer here. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag

In an effort toward constructive solutions, appropriate for any Wikiproject, I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{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 arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 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.

Note: Please keep comments concise and on point.

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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" for want of a better term across all Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) pablo_hablo. 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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, --A Nobody 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 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. -- Banjeboi 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 here, 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. 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, --A Nobody 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey now, I called WP:DUCK on the nominator days earlier for Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mibbit... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, it should highlight all empty !votes. pablo_hablo. 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• weak oppose to oppose The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ikip (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • One of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{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. -- Banjeboi 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, --A Nobody 21:13, 9 May 2009 (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 {{rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. pablo_hablo. 21:19, 9 May 2009 (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, --A Nobody 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. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --A Nobody 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Permission is not required for this. Per WP:BOLD, if you think this is a good idea then go for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (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. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 10 May 2009 (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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:36, 10 May 2009 (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. Rebecca (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (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. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (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. Taemyr (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is an interesting question too. Either would be illuminating. Randomran (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not looking to do a big ol' comparison per se but just identify empty !voters who may also be ARS members (official or not) who should be coached to improve. For neutrality all empty !voters should be contacted with the same message. The stated concern is empty "keep" !votes associated with ARS. If those are stopped then that's a step in the right direction, right? And if we also help stop other empty votes then even better. In thinking on this further I'm not sure a bot would be able to determine all this so it may have to be the human bots instead. or perhaps an initial survey to see what the empty !votes are and extrapolate those findings for a bot. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that the worst thing that happens is we find a few specific instances where articles aren't being improved. That's information that we can use to teach some members of ARS to be as effective as its best members. If people do a better job of improving articles, aren't we helping ARS achieve its purpose, and ultimately Misplaced Pages's? Randomran (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This survey wouldn't address that, only empty !votes at AfD. And the hall of fame list is majorly outdated; we've had hundreds of rescues since then but no clear idea how best to capture that and strycture the chart to express that. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Err, I think that's what I meant. We'll find a few instances of empty !votes. That's just a way to help people make more effective arguments, and contribute to improving the article in ways that will help rescue, and help Misplaced Pages. There's really no downside, assuming a few other editors have the time and energy to do the analysis. Randomran (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I support but only because I can't think of a better word. It sounds like a great idea and I hope that it gets completed but I don't really have any interest in participating. OlYeller 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, excellent idea. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support to survey all empty !votes, as they are sadly just as likely to be found in terse delete opinions as they might in terse keeps. I recently worked on an article that was nommed as an unreleased future film that failed Crystal. The first several !votes were all delete as crystal, or delte as unreleased, etc... following in the footsteps of the nom. I spent 5 minutes in deiligent search and found that the film had not only been released the year previous, but that it had won several festival awards and received significant coverage. My squawking about poor WP:BEFORE starts to sound like bad faith in what would be hoped is a good faith nomination, but I have seen this happen far too many times. Its beyond frustrating. There has to be some way to curtail continued lack of or sloppy use of BEFORE, or lack of consideration of WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, or following the instructions at WP:DEL. If this survey helps underscore poor !votes and results in suggested solutions, I am all for looking into the situation and I'd like this survey to have a wider scope. Time to open wiki-school and wiki refresher courses. Schmidt, 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest 2?

See Misplaced Pages:Article rescue contest. What a splendid idea! Why not start a Misplaced Pages:Article rescue contest II (after all it has been four years since the first, so in the spirit of the olympics...)? Let's focus on something that is simultaneously fun, rewarding, and constructive! Not opposed to Misplaced Pages:Article rescue contest 2 or Misplaced Pages:Article rescue contest 2009 or something as an alternative name. Best, --A Nobody 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. How would it work? Randomran (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose like the first one, no? I can tell from such discussions as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (film) (with rescue credit due mostly to Collectonian, I think?) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations (well, I think I deserve the lionshare of credit on this one! :)) that editors do have a motivation to rescue the rescue templated articles, so I do not see why they would not be interested in such a thing as an added incentive and good spirited competition. Best, --A Nobody 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the first one, and I guess I wasn't clear on everything. Would we start rescuing articles on some certain date and keep track of our efforts over a few weeks, or would editors begin submitting articles they've rescued over the years to see which ones are the most improved? Randomran (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to see things as moving forward, so rather than focus on ones rescued in the past for which we can already claim say the little life preservers I have on the top of my talk page, let's focus on ones currently under discussion or that will be and yes, we can set some target date. The ARS was founded on July 13th, so it can be an anniversary event say between now and then. Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think a race to see who can do the most or the fastest is always fun. But it may also be fun to see if people can take at-risk articles to GA or even FA status. It's very satisfying when you turn someone else's garbage into Misplaced Pages's treasure. There's a lot of different ways to approach a contest. But even though it's a competition, it's probably best to think of a format that will maximize the benefit for Misplaced Pages and its overall spirit of collaboration. Randomran (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First, let's agree on the name, i.e. which redlink to make blue above and then I will gladly began drafting the contest. As the proposer here, I would see my own role being as helping draft the proposal and just helping out on all the various articles rather than being a judge or contestant, although I would rather have a simple say 6 day vote open to all ARS members than a judgement deal. Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of those would be a good idea. Let's get some feedback from the others. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. There is/was? something called a bounty board as well on here, maybe a rescue bounty board would be another motivating factor too. Best, --A Nobody 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Once the current drama dies down I would support this. It may make sense to dovetail with building up our "How to rescue" page to assist newbies as well as guide non-newbies towards building GA level articles. For continuity for future use it may make sense as well to start it July 1 so it can cover half of 2009 and a new contest can cover the first half of 2010. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Will the drama ever die down? I say start the contest now A Nobody, knowing you will be doing the majority of the work. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, but I would like us to agree on a name for it first. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Misplaced Pages:Article rescue contest 2? Be Bold, create it, we can always rename it later. Ikip (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have started it. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 2 year aniversary, you are starting a annual trend ! Ikip (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, annual would suggest we do it every year; that first contest was I think back in 2005, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect I suggest starting it July 1 so the focus can be on a 6-month article improvement contest and not on ARS' anniversary. In promoting it we can advertise it as a way to mark our anniversary. Also rather than yearlong contests I wonder if two 6-month contests a year make sense to attrack those (like myself) who may not be into a year-long commitment or repel those who show up mid-year to a contest that is half-over, etc. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the anniversary date myself. Was the last contest for 6 long months? That seems to long, maybe two weeks, one month max. Otherwise people will start losing interest. Ikip (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Article Purgatory" proposal at WT:AfD

Please see my idea/proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#ARSify.3F Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

interesting suggestion. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola AfD

Sources for whomever wants to deal with the Nuvola AfD:

• Google Books: nuvola icon
• Debian: Nuvola packages
• Ubuntu: Nuvola packages
• Gentoo: Nuvola packages
• Mandriva: kde-icons-nuvola
• Mandriva: nagios-theme-nuvola
• FreeBSD Ports: kde-icons-nuvola

--Tothwolf (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are just places to download various versions of the Nuvola package. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I will help you out. I will try to see what I can do. template used: {{findsources3|Nuvola icon}}

For Nuvola icon: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

For Nuvola: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I messaged you some common tools which may help also.

Ikip (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually those are not download links at all, they link to package information for various Linux distributions and the FreeBSD ports tree. Those are valid refs to establish WP:N in showing that this icon set is included in multiple open source operating systems. These are pretty standard refs for Open Source Software articles when establishing notability for a particular software package. The first link to Google Books pulls up multiple books with information on the Nuvola icon set. I've got my hands full right now so I really don't have time to work on the article or play a game of keep vs delete in that AfD. Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we move this to that AfD? -- Banjeboi 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think this person is asking for help, let everyone at ARS see it. I have a difficult time with this article. Hard to find sources. Ikip (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  If anywhere, it'd belong on the article talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've just got my hands full... There should be more than enough in the 4+ books Google Books turned up to satisfy WP:RS (multiple published works) and the Linux package information (not download links) should deal with any remaining WP:N. Again, common stuff used for articles about Open Source Software, just never thought I'd see one of the widely used icon libraries go up for AfD ;) Tothwolf (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The article talk page would get little or no response. Why suggest this A Man In Black?

I would suggest adding these references to the article itself, and to the AFD. then put a notification that to the closing nominator that the article has gone through signifigant improvements. Ikip (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press