Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benjiboi (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 18 May 2009 (archiving 222k discussion that only one editor seems to want to belabour). 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 710 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)

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)

To me the work needs to be in porportion to the benefits. I think six months is a good time period and if we want to start a new semi-annual one we simply copy paste. The goals, IMHO, is to not simply look to rescue but to instill quality work, if our top contestant rescues and takes five articles from AfD to GA that rather speaks for itself. Also a broader time frame lends itself to wider promotion in appropriate venues. As part of that promotion we should explain what ARS is in a brief boilerplate which can include our anniversary. Theoreticly, article rescuing has always occurred so it's not so much about ARS but the concept and getting better articles and editing. We are but one part of the solution and should be realistic in that many people rescue without our involvement at all. -- Banjeboi 00:05, 16 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)

Discussion to end edit-warring of including "objection statement" to ARS' FAQ

The following was removed from ARS' FAQ by an editor who has a history of objections to ARS:

1. What if I object to what Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is doing?

   ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve content as a maintenance project. Our scope is not subject focussed as much as policy-focussed to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. Any editor committed to improving the encyclopedia is welcome to help here as well as at any of the other projects representing a variety of views and interests.

Any constructive suggestions to wording changes welcome otherwise I'd like to re-add as it has indeed been a source of disruption so spelling out clearly what our focus is and that other Wikiprojects exist which may be in line with someone's views seems appropriate. -- Banjeboi 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See the entire proto-RFC above for objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is a question that is in any sense "frequently asked", unless it is a question that editors are asking each other via e-mail. I've never seen it asked on this page. pablo_hablo. 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The spirit, obviously, is to address those who simply object to ARS which is sadly evident. Casting aspersions on all project members and non-objectively characterizing all members as part of some cabal. This is to help address that not everyone has to agree with what every Wikiproject does. In my experience if someone doesn't like LGBT issues they don't sit around the LGBT project talkpage harassing us. IMHO, that is what has been happenning here in many subtle forms. If any of these issues were dealt with civilly I doubt we would need such a statement but there you go. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not address. It dismisses. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What could we add that may help ease that then - constructive suggestions are always welcome - or what? -- Banjeboi 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you ease the problem? Dispose of this. "What if I object?" "Whatever your objection is, here's a statement about why this project is good and why you shouldn't have any objections." It doesn't specify any objection, it doesn't address any objection, it's a non-question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And on top of this, it says that this project does something it explicitly does not and should not do. It is not the place where people "determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability." This is not an article deletion thinktank. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I think it was a really good idea that you brought these discussions here. I disagree with you on some things, but this was a really good call. thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, you have caused a huge amount of disruption to this project, repeatedly over at least the past few months. In short this statement is to address your behaviours and anyone else following in your footsteps. Although others have come, made their peace and moved on, or been resoundly rejected in various community forums, you have stuck in my mind and that's unfortunate because it's for the worst of reasons. I look forward to the day we interact and I have to be reminded that we clashed over several months; that seems like a ways off at this point. You can continue what feels like attrition warfare but the next step is more eyes on your actions rather than what seems like an effort to in some way mitigate ARS' work. Is this a rather pointy statement? Perhaps, I hope it will curb some rather pointy behaviours. Even if you think you're right doesn't give you license to turn this project into a battleground. And yes we very much look to policies to decide what sourcing is indeed reliable; we look to policy to guide us on what subjects are indeed notable, etc. etc. -- Banjeboi 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait. So you're saying that people have come here with problems, been rebuffed, and left with nothing happening, and that's good. But I stayed to see change effected, and that's bad. This is revealing, but not in the way you think. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from putting words in my mouth, that really seems like arguing semantics when the spirit expressed, both here and elsewhere, is that constructive criticism to any Wikiproject is fine and welcome. bullying and other incivil behaviours are not. -- Banjeboi 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AMiB, I don't think you're going to get anywhere here. When editors start saying things like "A FAQ section is to help curb alleged problems - unclear why you would be opposed to solving the very issues you seem to be contiually alleging exist", there is a reasonable chance that they actually believe what they are saying (i.e. that dismissing all forms of criticism is a good way to solve a problem). It's good to know the Richard Nixon school of crisis management is still going strong, but Misplaced Pages pages shouldn't try to advertise in favour of their existence. This just makes it even more of a "us vs. them" battleground. Ben,Trav,Michael, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. While you may, by acting as a group, be able to do pretty much what you like with the pages here, don't forget that when the day of judgement comes (and we all know it will), every over the top green-e-in-the-signatures-type-thing will become an argument for your opponents. yandman 09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yandman, this really seems like back-handed compliment loaded with bad faith. The posse mounted against this Wikiproject in short is alleging there is an inclusionist cabal run amok at ARS yet the proof of such remains woefully thin and mostly absent. The few reasonable concerns as pointed out by uninvolved parties is (i) watch for possible problems when ARS is involved in non-article XfDs; (ii) notification posts to ARS need to be neutral and (iii) empty !votes should be discouraged. Guess what? Those issues have been and are being addressed. Veiled threats notwithstanding, constructive critism has hardly been dismissed. I can't think of any instance where someone's valid concerns haven't been addressed. Whether they like they answer they get may certainly be another issue. -- Banjeboi 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you thought this would be productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to end edit-warring of including "policy notification statement" to ARS' FAQ

The following was removed from ARS' FAQ by an editor who has a history of objections to ARS:

1. How can I get ARS to help win my policy discussion?

   First off, like 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 like "There is a discussion about foo at _____." Avoid the appearance of telling anyone how to think of the discussion - you are inviting people to participate, not to think or vote a certain way. See WP:Canvassing for clarification on this.

Any constructive suggestions to wording changes welcome otherwise I'd like to re-add as it has indeed been a source of disruption so spelling out clearly and neutrally that policy discussion notifications need to be neutral seems appropriate. -- Banjeboi 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the objectionable text, and describing people as having "a history of objections to ARS" is ridiculous poisoning the well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is a question that is in any sense "frequently asked", unless it is a question that editors are asking each other via e-mail. I've never seen it asked on this page. pablo_hablo. 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

this is a modification of my original posting, which was completly deleted by AMIB. one of the three 3RRs in the past 11 days.

AMIB is starting his fourth edit war by deleting the FAQ tag. At least AMIB has not deleted the FAQ page entirely yet, with no consensus before hand, as AMIBhas with other ARS subpages he didn't like before.

"a history of objections to ARS" WP:SPADE Ikip (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And one of your two 3RRs in the last three days. And I could point out that you have a history of canvassing for favorable editors here and elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I only had 2RRs.

I think we are discussing reversions of this template. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• AMIB, if you descibe the text is "not objectionable", why did you persist in deleting it and related content? Hoping this is not the case, edit summaries such as THIS might be perceived as edit warring and an assumption of bad faith. Let's discuss. Schmidt, 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black that is the text you deleted. If you don't object to it then we can re-add it without further rehashing? Pablomismo, again this is a preventative measure to address the stated concerns that non-neutral notifications are an issue. This is a constructive solution to a problem that has been stated as a concern. If it's an easy solution then it would seem to be logical to try it. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still junk. Nobody has asked this question, and the answer is lifted directly from pro #4 above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't lift it from anywhere, FWIW, and don't appreciate it being dismissed as "junk". Again, this seems to directly address a stated concern so clearly helping prevent future occurences would seem to be a win-win situation. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is junk. It doesn't address a stated concern; it encourages people to do something that has been repeatedly questioned here. No, you really shouldn't be putting any notice of a policy discussion here; there are lots of noticeboards for them and this isn't one of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point completely. Any Wikiproject can, and many are, notified of policy discussions; if you feel that should not happen then you need to address that on a system-wide basis - that no Wikiprojects can be notified of any policy discussions, no matter if it's neutral or not. Until then ARS will be treated like every other project. Your disdain for this project is well documented but finding new ways to vex us is only causing more emnity and casting further doubts on the wisdom of your participating here. You've had som ereasonable insights but coupled with the behavioural issues you're tap-dancing beyond the patience of this project. -- Banjeboi 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no divine right of notification. You let a Wikiproject know about a policy discussion when it's relevant. Thing is, this project explicitly excludes policy from its scope.

As for the rest, your disdain for anyone even remotely critical of this project is well documented but going off-topic to attack people instead of issues in order to vex them is only causing more emnity and casting further doubts on the wisdom of your participation here. You've had some reasonable insights, but coupled with the behavioral issues, you're tap-dancing beyond the patience of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black, please refrain from this antagonism. Your wishes for how others should conduct themselves don't seem to be supported by community standards. Likewise your own behaviours are increasingly violating the civility policies that have been set by the community. In response to this specific idea - that ARS in any way excludes policy - you may need to re-read the one sentence that states anything about policy. The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. This doesn't even imply that we exclude policy, if fact it implies that we concern ourselves with policy but not to ensure that nothing is deleted. You can try to trun that any way you wish but the meaning is inferred explicitly - we don't try to bend policy to prevent deletion. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What interest does this project have in policy, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies that affect any Wikiprojects work would naturally be of interest to them. I'm really not interested in further engaging you on this so I hope that's clear enough. -- Banjeboi 05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand. "junk" "cruft" "nuke and pave"

First, how do you think editors feel when you and others describe their contributions as "junk"?

Second, is a "nuke and pave" attitude towards editors' contributions compatible with rescuing articles? Ikip (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a real problem staying on topic. If you were here for something other than stirring up fights, you'd address what I was saying, instead of how I said it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not the person who has deleted other editors pages, or had three 3rr in the past 11 days, I have never called you a troll here. So accusing me of stirring up a fight seems like WP:KETTLE, and much more. You are after all, calling the editors contributions "junk". Were you expecting a positive reaction? Ikip (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I eagerly await your defense of the utility of this topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB I eagerly await you starting to act like an adminsitrator is expected too. Don't demand editors to act a certain way when your edit history here and beyond shows that you have been less than civil and cooperative on numerous occasions.

Civilized discussions don't magically develop when one editor is calling other editors' contributions "junk", starting three 3rrs in the past 3 days, deleting editors pages, etc., etc. 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I eagerly await your defense of the utility of this topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back "on topic". I do not myself see the text you wish deleted as "junk", as there have been reams of discussion above on this page about how some see ARS as some sort of "cabal with a mission" (not a direct quote, just an impression), and the questioned text answers a cogent question newer editors might have if they think to join ARS specifically because they beleive or wish we have some sort of trick other than hard work that saves articles. You are an experienced editor, certainly, but that FAQ is for the uninitiated, as they might have expectations that are not realistic.

When they ask "'How can I get ARS to help win my policy discussion?" The answer of course is that they cannot "get" ARS to help them "win" anything, as this is not a contest. They are encouraged to improve their articles, get them properly sourced per guideline, and then hope that work is seen in a positive light at an AfD if it goes there. The FAQ answer

"First off, like 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 like "There is a discussion about foo at _____." Avoid the appearance of telling anyone how to think of the discussion - you are inviting people to participate, not to think or vote a certain way. See WP:Canvassing for clarification on this"

addresses a valid concern that should be addressed, and advises that neutral notification seeking input are allowed. The FAQ answer might benefit from tweaking, but educating newcomers in the proper ways to improve the project is of benefit TO the project. Schmidt, 05:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then address that specifically. Tell people who are here on a mission to go elsewhere. Don't tell them to temper their message, to advertise less obnoxiously. If you are here to do something other than improve articles, then go away. There's doubtless a more diplomatic way to suggest that, but bottom line this is not a general-purpose deletion noticeboard. Politely misusing this project is less problematic but still problematic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if "This is the place to work on improving articles which are up for deletion, other business goes elsewhere" were quietly and effectively enforced, I suspect the RFC above goes away. I go back to having quiet qualms about the {{rescue}}/{{ARS/Tagged}} mechanism as a whole without having any argument sufficient to convince even myself, Ikip finds a new cause to champion (and he's got at least one more productive one on his plate), and this whole project runs a lot more smoothly. It'd just need to go smoothly and efficiently enough to keep anyone from rising to righteous defense of anyone or anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are well known however it's helpful that you remind us this is an ongoing issue of hounding Ikip. This Wikiproject is not going to cave into your intimidation and your disruption here needs to end immediately. Whatever you had to say has been repeatedly stated, responded to and in most cases refuted. Your continued presence is now disrupting us from moving forward. Time spent addressing the valid concerns is instead being spent to entertain your circular and somewhat mistaken concepts on what Wikiprojects do and how they conduct themselves. -- Banjeboi 05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me a cookie when an ARS member actually answers the substance of a post here rather than dismissing it as 1) vindictive 2) a personal attack 3) disruptive?

No seriously, I don't get why you don't make any of these changes that are being suggested. I'm rather distressed to peak here from finals hell and find that discussion of my suggestions (which were supported by Masem and PhilKnight, two users known for being even-minded and fair) was arbitrarily archived by you. If you care about the goal of this project—saving articles, which again, no one here has any objection to—I don't see why taking the steps being suggested is difficult at all. Swear off anything remotely to do with policy discussions, have people who work on rescuing an article recuse themselves from the article's AfD (after noting they made improvements), and appoint coordinators to enforce this. It's startling that so many former ARS members say that the current course of the project is blatantly wrong and that the current members apparently don't care. None of these means you can't go and argue against evil deletionists on X policy discussion; all it means is restoring this project to its original aims as a nonpartisan group. You have people here bitching about problems because there are problems, not because they're all random blokes who have a beef to pick with the ARS. Again, that so many members of the ARS that were around when it was founded have a problem with the ARS' current course is indicative of a problem. Fix it. — sephiroth bcr 07:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth, I don't think anyone takes you seriously. You are a delitionists, someone who mindlessly tries to destroy things you don't like for whatever reason. Why are you even on this page? You naively believe you are helping the wikipedia by deleting articles that some would find interesting, which aren't hurting anyone by existing, and which no one would find unless they were searching for them to begin with. That sort of mentality is not compatible with what we are trying to do here. Dream Focus 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely disappointing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What is? My pointing out that we wouldn't have to work so hard to save articles, if people like him weren't trying so hard to destroy them, and to prevent a change in the guidelines that would be fair and reasonable, to avoid most of the AFD altogether? He doesn't like episode or character pages, and votes to keep the guidelines from supporting their existence, and I've seen him in enough AFD in the manga/anime section to know he votes to delete them whenever he is around to participate. Dream Focus 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

policy/FAQ

Instead of having a bunch of fake "frequently asked questions", then, why not just have a statement of the scope and aims of the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablomismo (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 May 2009

Ignoring your rather uncivil assertion, we already have those statements on our project page. -- Banjeboi 10:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring your assertion of incivility though, do you not think that if ARS is to have a FAQ section it should be a list of frequently asked questions? As I understand it that is what the acronym usually stands for. pablo_hablo. 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling our FAQ "fake" is uncivil, unhelpful and counter-productive. And frankly you seem to be simply arguing that if the exact wording of question X didn't occur then it's invalid. Sorry, you seem to be more interested in just arguing. I think based on the vociferous debate of a handful of folks a concise FAQ may help nip this battling in the bud. ARS members, well no one really, needs to be treated this way. FAQ is to help those who may actually need some guidance while our project page seems to fairly enough address any scope questions. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree it should be named something else. Answers to what may be common questions, or explanations to further the understanding of what the squadron is about. Dream Focus 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Newby editors survey

Misplaced Pages's Usability and Experience Study is a somewhat lengthy but interesting read for those concerning with how friendly and usable Misplaced Pages can be. The bits about references may help inform writing some of our how to material. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the link, I enjoyed it. It seems like many of the problems they address are system wide, which we have no control over. But the "how to" may help in some of these respects. Maybe there are other how-to's which are already available which would be helpful and which can be incorporated? Ikip (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I think for our part we should emphasize the most basic way to ref a sentence and feel free to ask for help. Once we're clear of the current drama I feel i can devote more time to the How to content -- Banjeboi 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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