Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Red cunt hair

Resolved
 – Drv closed and discussions on ARS at DrV affirmed is at least some cases. More discussion may need to suss out what to do on a DrF of a deleted article. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up; the previously rescued Red cunt hair has now been deleted; I've taken it to DRV here because I don't see a consensus in the AfD - but it's not looking too good.  Chzz  ►  19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd pitch this as canvassing (hey guys, come back me up at DRV), but a comment made there bears discussion. "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly." Where did this attitude come from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea where that came from. ARS is chartered to make improvements on articles that are salvageable. We're no more chartered to sit as judges on any article than any other editors are. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If the article was rescued, and then got deleted anyway, against consensus, then it does affect all of us. You can't have rogue editor ignoring everyone in the AFD, and deciding on their own what to do, or the consensus system becomes irrelevant. Dream Focus 10:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"ignoring everyone in the AFD", that is, except for those that supported deletion, I suppose? Anyway, this deletion review is already at the correct venue, i.e. DRV: the ARS has nothing to do with that process. Fram (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring the majority, I should've said. There was obviously no consensus for delete. Dream Focus 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A majority of 11 keeps vs. 10 deletes. Of course, AfD's aren't a votecount and strength of arguments is more important than raw numbers, so it may well be that we have an admin who hasn't ignored anyone or any opinion, but given them all the weight they deserve, or it may be that we have an admin who has misjudged the closure, without being "rogue" and so on. But again, that's a case for DRV, not for ARS. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that in your reply to me, you for some reason included the edit summary ""Red cunt hair" 12,600 hits on Google". It's not really useful to make such arguments in edit summaries, and it is hardly relevant anyway, since "black cunt hair" also gives more than 10,000 hits[1]. Fram (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this isn't clear: is there an opportunity and a need to improve a threatened article? If not, why is this section here? --Kizor 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
To canvass inclusionists, just like everything else on this page. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's both incivil and untrue. If you want your move proposal to be taken seriously, such open and unjustified antagonism isn't helping. Jclemens (talk)`
The comments on that DRV suggest that he's right, however. Black Kite 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments to one DRV suggest that everything on this page exists to canvass inclusionists? For certain non-traditional interpretations of "everything", perhaps, but not in any meaning I routinely use. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Get bent. In the absence of anything relevant to the scope of the Squadron, I'm tagging this as resolved. Discussion about scope and scope creep could be topical in its own section, though. I'll personally stay out of it but will try to rescue a couple of articles instead. --Kizor 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. In this case I don't see what we can do without actually being able to work on the article but making blanket accusations against the whole project seems less than productive. If the article did exist we would apply the {{rescue}} tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve Wikipedia in this manner. Jumping on editors for stepping out of form seems likely over-reacting. If closers on AfD and DrV can't adequately weight the many facets of a discussion that is a different issue that ARS has no control over. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, one more incident where nearly everyone agrees that it is canvassibng, but you don't... DRV is about the AFD closure, not about the merits of the article, so imprvong an article during a DRV would have no effect on the discussion, as it is irrelevant. The only thing you can do on a DRV is argue that the closer interpreted the diuscussion incorectly, which has nothing to do with the ARS. Of course labelling all the work of the ARS as canvassing is incorrect, but when you have people who argue that nothing is canvassing, no matter how blatant, then some backlash is to be expected. Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • (sigh) Did I state anywhere that I didn't see this as canvassing? Please stop mischaracterizing me or the work of this project which you apparently disagree at every turn. And you're wrong; ARS does improve articles at DRV even saving a few but more important helping others see that AfD's sometimes close in error and that notable subjects are deleted mistakenly. DRV is not AfD 2.0 but if, for example, the AfD stated no notability, etc but in process of the DRV new sourcing showed notability then the entire issue becomes moot. We don't delete an article just because the process said to, we keep or delete because it's that right result at the time. One reason DrVs are overturned is that opinions were presented with less information that we now have in hindsight. This isnt a battle to keep or delete. This is part of an overall project to serve our readers with the best articles possible. As to the canvassing warning sirens? My point has been confirmed again that by making a huge deal out of it has caused much more drama than simply handling it civilly. Ergo the complaints about the post caused much more divisiness than the post itself ever did. -- Banjeboi 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • "More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. " certainly does not give the impression that you consider this canvassing. And where did I "mischaracterize the work of this project"? Creating a new, adequate article instead of a previously AfD deleted one is normal editing process and does not concern DRV (or ARS). Only when a page is salted can a trip down DRV lane be necessary to get it unsalted. As for drama, you are still the only one going on about this, just like you have not given even one example of an editor who canvassed here and was civilly adressed by you, thereby solving that problem. Fram (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It may make sense to allow the DRV to finish but User:Chzz/Red cunt hair2 is the userfied article. Unsure how similar to the deleted article it is. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects are conducting themselves the exact same way as ARS is, with absolutely no criticism

Wikipedia editors in other wikiprojects are pretty much free to post whatever links they want. Discussion in context of posting relevant XfD to wikiprojects collapsed for navigation. FAQ box added to top of talkpage.

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

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

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

  • Good stuff. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was thinking of creating a special FAQ page for this page, incorporating some of this information, whenever someone comes here to complain about, for example, canvassing, or that what we are doing is outside of our project, etc. We can simply refer them to this FAQ. Instead of having to deal with the same complaints repeatedly. Ikip (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't bet on it helping, but it's a good idea anyways. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate it. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I've reached my limit on this subject but I can manage to muster a grunt of agreement. Personally, I'm moving towards just ignoring. OlYellerTalktome 04:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "These editors actively argue deletion strategies and tactics, with no repurcusions. [sic]" There are no such repercussions, because viewpoints aren't met with "Maybe from now on, if someone comes and complains about this project, we simply refer them to the now dormant Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion, and tell them to restart that project." If you went to WP:VG with a decent argument for dismantling WP:VGSCOPE, for example, you'd get criticism of your argument and ideas on how to use your ideas, not "Make your own project, you're not welcome in ours."

    Similarly, those projects have a topic, and as a practical matter include all editors interested in that topic, whether or not their names are on a "members" list or not. Their viewpoint is largely that of all editors interested in the subject. What's WP:ARS's subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    • AMIB, I think you would be much more welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. Your continued disruption has been brought up here numerous times. Although this is a minor issue, your views on articles appear to be starkly counter to this project, for example see AMIB's new essay: WP:NUKE. That said, I can't emphasize this enough (and predictably you make this the main counterpoint), this is not about AMIB views, this is about your actions within this project.

      This has nothing to do with whether an editor is or is not on a membership list, this has everything to do with continued harrassment, hounding and disruption, at a level that no other wikiproject has to endure.

      For the past several months, AMIB has been the editor spearheading this disruption. ENOUGH. AMIB, you are welcome to go and restart Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion.

      Unfortunately, AMIB probably won't leave willingly. Ikip (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, errors on other pages don't make it correct to do the same here, obviously. I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't. People on the project often disagree on what to keep or not anyway (on WP:FICT, Hiding and I are often taking opposite positions, even though we are both active members of the comics project). E.g. in the current archive, there are two such neutral messages. I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here. Fram (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Fram, how can you call these "errors": it is the status quo. I appreciate many of your comments here. But, Fram, I think you would be more comfortable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. If you decide to stay here, I think you need to accept that DRV notifications, AFD notifications, and deletion discussions are an acceptable part of all wikiprojects. Ikip (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll choose the projects I care to hang around for myself, thank you. I am quite aware that you are trying every way you can imagine to get people critical of some things here removed from this project and talk page, but that's not how it works. I notice that when uninvolved people come here or discuss it elsewhere, they often tend to agree when it concerns e.g. the canvassing aspect of some posts here. You are free to come to any project you like and react against canvassing that happens there (whether for keeping or deleting things), just like I am free to do the same here. But congratulations on you finding a canvassing post to the comicsproject from early 2007 where the first reply was to send the editor to the correct venue, i.e. DRV, with the additional remark "Honestly, remember that this isn't 'your' site. All of us have had hard work deleted, and while we don't always agree with it, if the majority comes down and says 'this goes', then it goes." Hardly a ringing endorsement of canvassing... But I admit it, one post from 2007 indicates that that project obviously has the same persistent problem as the ARS talk page has... Fram (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The harrassment and disruption has reached its zeinth. I applaud Ben for being so patient for so long, but I think enough is enough.

        I am simply suggesting your views maybe appreciated more at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. I don't have a problem with you continuing editing here, if you acknowledge that this project get the same benefits of all wikiprojects. I disagree with most everything you say, but thats okay. I applaud you for not participating in this harrassment and disruption. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

        • I am not interested if my views are appreciated or not, I am not here to discuss things with likeminded people only. Healthy projects need people with different points of view, to keep things balanced, and to better know the thoughts and opinions of other factions and individuals in the Wikipedia community. As for "this project gets the same benefits of all wikiprojects": no, only wgere applicable. You (plural) don't want to be treated like any other wikiproject (e.g. by putting your tags on the article page instead of the talk page), and sometimes with good reason. But this may also imply that in some situations, you don't get the benefits other projects have. But specifically for canvassing and so on: I have stated and state again that neutral notices about XfD's within the scope of the ARS are generally acceptable (e.g. "X is up for deletion. I wonder if it would be useful to tag it for the ARS?" is acceptable: however, if some people then would rush to the discussion to vote keep, without improving the article to address the problems, adn if this would be a recurring action, then this appraoch may have to be rethought). This is the same as I would state for any project. Fram (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Every organization has social norms, rules, and ways they conduct business. If you don't like the way things are done at the ARS at this point, as far as what you call "canvassing", report it to an outside party. Because I suspect it will continue, and may even increase, despite your objections here.

            ARS should not have to continue to go through unprecedent scrutiny ad nauseum by editors whose edit history shows they are opposed to the very spirit of the project. Of the hundreds of wikiprojects, no other wikiproject has had to endure the harrassment that this project has.

            Now that the line is drawn, its time to come up with solutions when it is crossed again. Ikip (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

            • I don't see anyone present who's opposed to the spirit of improving articles. I see lots of disagreement over how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
            • It would be better if you stuck to discussing projects, rules, interpretations, ... and avoided discussing editors, certainly when you are again wrong about what I am or think. I have saved articles which were up for deletion, I have created quite a few articles, written DYKs and GA-class articles, improved other articles, and so on. I am not planning on changing my Wikipedia behaviour anytime soon. Fram (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
            • "… scrutiny ad nasium …"??? Dude, nobody's looking up your nose. pablohablo. 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I know I've clashed with WP:ALBUMS and WP:CFB before over (what I perceive to be) excessively inclusionist attitudes, so don't worry, you folks aren't the only project I don't get on with :) Stifle (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I said it at Deletion Review, and I repeat it here: Don't take the attempts by a battleground-seeking minority to pervert the ARS into something that it is not, as evidence that it actually is, or is intended to be by non-battlers, what it is not. And don't think that simply because you disagree with Ikip you therefore disagree with many people here. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, your post gave me an idea. Maybe we should find out what the ARS members think about this discussion? Is it acceptable for this project to behave like the hundreds and hundreds of other wikiprojects? 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple rebuttal

More of the same but two issue areas highlighted of posting non-NPOV talkpage threads that smack of canvassing and separate but perhaps interelated issues of AfD getting empty !votes with suggestion that ARS look to some internal solutions.}} Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it. Come to WP:FOOTY some time: almost anything posted as an AfD notice there is eventually deleted. Even on projects where more members are of the inclusionist bent (WP:DND comes to mind), deletion discussions are posted there to alert experts on the subject matter.

This is manifestly untrue of this page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yet, we end up with how many AFDs in which most of the deletes come from those who have no knowledge or the subject under discussion, are unwilling to look for sources anyway, and don't care even if sources do turn up. It seems that in at least most of my experiences, a minority of experts (however we define that here) on the subjects ever comment in the respctive AfDs. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If you want to encourage people to stick to deletion policy at AFD, AFD Patrol is thataway. We deal in article rescue here. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Same tired argument, ignoring the reality of, oh, nearly every single wikiproject. Ikip (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am glad that you acknowledge that it is okay to post Deletion discussion, AFDs, etc, on almost every wikiproject but this one. Is there any other exception on wikipedia but this page?

    Also, it seems that you and Fram need to sit down and discuss, why, in Fram's eyes, posting Deletion discussion, AFDs, etc is wrong: "errors on other pages don't make it correct to do the same here, obviously. I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't." Of course, Fram will argue that there is no contradiction. Ikip (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Ikip, as you can read in the quote you just gave, I argue that posting deletion discussions and so on which fall under the scope of the project is not wrong, only that posting non-neutral notices or notices which do not fall under the scope of a project is wrong. Please don't misrepresent my opinion. Fram (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • What is the scope of this wikiproject? To save articles, again the only difference between our project and comic books, is ours is wider.

        Please clarify, can we all agree that any and all projects which have a narrow subject, can post AfDs, DRVs, etc?

        There is a pretty wide gray line between: "come and keep X" and "X is up for deletion". Ikip (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

        • The aim of the ARS is to improve articles (or "content", if you prefer) that is up for deletion in XfD. The aim of the ARS is not to save articles as such, but to save articles by improving them so that they meet the relevant policies and guidelines. As for the gray line: it is best to stay as far away from it as possible, to avoid even the impression of canvassing. And wrt posting AFD's: all AfD's posted for rescue are already listed on this talk page, and on the user talk page add-on many of you have, and on the category for ARS tagged pages, and on the main project page. Additional listing of this page here, certainly when enhanced by comments inviting people to help keep the article at the AfD, are unnecessary and canvassing. Listing pages outside the scope of the ARS (e.g. pages where a merge is discussed) is also canvassing. It's really not that hard: if a message is perfectly neutral and clearly within the scope of the project, then it is not canvassing. Everything else will have more and more shades of canvassing, sometimes explicit, sometimes more implicit, and should be avoided and discouraged. Fram (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Again, can we all agree that any and all projects which have a narrow subject, can post AfDs, DRVs, etc?

            It gets rather draining to have editors whose edit history tends to be counter to this project goals and ambitions, telling us members of ARS what the aim of ARS is. I sincerely feel that your talents and intellect would be best utilized in a project that matches your views. This is not that project. 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

            • Us and you again. What does someone have to do to qualify to be a member? In most Wikiprojects, the mere willingness to watchlist the project page is membership. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
            • I have replied to your question over and over again, you'll have to ask a different question if you want a different answer. As for my edit history; I don't see how it is "counter to this projects goals and ambitions", since I have saved articles at AfD, sourced articles, written articles (including a number of DYKs and two GAs), ... That I have also deleted many pages and nominated a lot for deletion does not mean that I don't support the ARS in principle. "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." This is what I have tried throughout my years here, just like, I hope, everyone else. Fram (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ←(A Nobody 08:56) "It seems that in at least most of my experiences, a minority of experts (however we define that here) on the subjects ever comment in the respective AfDs." I think you're onto something. Deletionists of no special expertise hang out at "Articles for Deletion" because that function is in the name of AfD. But inclusionists of no special expertise have no 'Articles for Inclusion' to hang out at. That creates an imbalance of excess deletionism. Thus it's logical and beneficial for project neutrality to have a venue like Article Rescue Squadron for inclusionists of no special expertise. (Not that I'll admit to that :) Milo 09:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That is nonsense, based upon a wholesale mischaracterization of who "hangs out" at AFD that I know several editors will laugh at for its erroneousness. Please stop trying to turn the ARS into a battleground with this namecalling nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • In at least the fiction AfDs, I have seen those on the delete side outright say "I don't really know anything about this", "I would never argue to keep," and "I'm not interested in seeing if sources exist", etc. (actual quotes the likes of which I have seen multiple times now, but this is not the place to discuss specific editors), ergo, comments by non-experts. There are clearly some who indeed do hover around AfDs with no interest in improving articles at all. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The ARS themselves could solve this problem at a stroke.
    • Identify those ARS members who aren't sticking to the ARS guidelines (i.e. never, or hardly ever, improving articles so that they survive AfD) and who instead are merely block voting "Keep" on AFDs (especially when those !votes are of poor quality), repeatedly canvassing for such votes, or agitating or wikilawyering over deletion related issues.
    • Remove them from the list of ARS members and tell them that their "efforts" aren't needed here.
    • Problem solved.
  • Black Kite 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, an unpreceded purging of members. I wonder if such a strict suggestion has ever, in the history of wikipedia, been suggested on any other wikiproject. but then again, ARS is unique in the level of scrutiny, criticism, and harrassment it recieves, to cite one of many examples, no other wikiproject has gone to MfD three times. Again, those editors whose philophy is counter to this project, there is an opposing project that has laid dormat for some years now. Ikip (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You've suggested that two people leave in this very talk page section. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion is not an opposing project. This project is about article rescue. It is not AFD Patrol, nor Deletion Sorting, nor an "-ism" advocacy medium.

        I suggest thinking long and hard about making further accusations against other people of "hypocrisy". I also suggest asking yourself a question that it is time everyone on this talk page asked xyrself: What was the last article that I actually did article rescue work on? Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    • That seems awfully unwelcoming and uncivil. In theory we would coach "problematic" editors to show them why empty !votes perhaps caused more harm than good. Unsure why this project would take a step to police its own members in such a way. Frankly this would seem a better WP:AFD overall issue to identify and target all editors who make empty !votes but even that may cause more problems than it solves. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Another solution would be to select a moderator from the existing members who'll remove canvassing notices and counsel those involved about the correct role of the squadron. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not about the AFD discussion contributions. Black Kite is talking about ARS "members" who aren't actually doing article rescue, or even focussing upon it on this talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I think part of Ikip's concern is that some making these claims are themselves not engaging in article rescue either, so... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite has identified the problem yet again. ☺ There is, in fact, an identifiable problem with the ARS' structure that I was going to bring up, here. It's exemplified by the recent red cunt hair (AfD discussion) débacle. The problem is that we have "members", who sign up at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members. One doesn't get to be an article rescuer by signing a page in the project namespace. One gets to be an article rescuer by rescuing articles. Nothing more, nothing less.

The RCH discussions are a striking example of what has, in recent months, gone seriously wrong with the ARS. There were two editors there who were real article rescuers, since they worked on the article to rescue it when it was at AFD. I worked on the draft (User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement)) when it was at Deletion Review. The two real article rescuers were LinguistAtLarge and Phil Bridger, both of whom have rescued articles in the past, and both of whom I've worked with on rescues in the past. (Heck, I'm working with LinguistAtLarge, discussing how to improve had had had had had had had had had had had (AfD discussion), now.) Neither of those people are ARS "members". I'm not myself. But we all three did some article rescue. In stark contrast, we had signed-up ARS "members" who contributed nothing to the actual rescue, but rather spent all of their time in the AFD discussions.

We seem to have a growing divergence between being an ARS "member" and being an actual, honest-to-goodness, article rescuer. And this divergence has been spurred on by the attempts of a few to turn the ARS into a battleground. The recent efforts (by Ikip, above) to drive away editors who espouse working on articles and who actually have done so in the past have crossed a line, and are unacceptable in my view.

This is not Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. It is not Wikipedia:Deletion sorting. This is article rescue. And it is time that it was reclaimed by article rescuers, from the people who are trying to turn it into a battleground and pervert it into something that it is not. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, hmmm. First off let's not quibble on who is or isn't an article rescuer, that seems unproductive. I have done quite a lot but not on that article. And XfD doesn't require an editor make edits to an item to qualify on offering an opinion. It would be nice but that's not a rule. I'm also unconvinced it's helpful to determine blame for who turned this page into a battleground. Frankly we've have had many insightful threads which have impacted this project and Wikipedia positively. What remains, IMHO, is to offer constructive suggestions and actionable items to what holds promise. Everyone, as always, is ultimately responsible for what they post. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Benjobi, I think you should recognize that recent conduct by members has caused a reaction. I'm suggesting you select a coordinator from the existing membership to prevent this happening in future. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll meet you on your talkpage to suss out some forward motion, this talkpage is a bit special at the moment. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Uncle G on this, watching this issue from the sidelines. ARS is a well-intended project, but that word "rescue" means an active participation in trying rescue articles that would otherwise be deleted through AFD. That doesn't mean just going to the AFD discussion and stating "keep"; that should only be done if the editor in question has made some attempting, even if just dropping a hyperlinked source into the article in question to help keep it. Thus, in terms of canvassing, posting requests here to get editors to help add sources or whatever else is necessary to an article up for rescue is appropriate (that's in the project's scope), but not for the purposes of adding !votes to an AFD without additional action. In contrary, the "canvasing" that listed above to specific Wikiprojects is appropriate because its implied that the project contains expert editors on the subject and thus can help guide the discussion particularly in light of that project's guidelines. That works both ways for keeps and deletes. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When an article's compliance with policy arguably falls below the threshold for inclusion, then ARS members ought to improve it before voting. When an article's been improved so that its now clearly worthy of staying, having a say on the AfD is sometimes all thats required.

Thanks to all non ARS members who have took the time to share their views on how we conduct ourselves – we'll certainly take your input into consideration. Ikip is to be commended for recognising that the sheer scale of deletionists efforts against worthy topic areas needs a collective responce, and ideally a change to policy. We take on board the point that this page may not be the best forum, we'll investigate the possibility of setting up a sibling relationship with Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion . Thanks again for the input, perhaps for the sake of balance some of you will offer your wise council on the talk pages of deletionists who nominate multiple worthy articles and on some days cast upwards of 50 deletion votes , none of which are for obvious deletion candidates such as attack pages or hoaxes? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, there has been an active effort at disruption and harrassment on this page, most recently spearheaded by A Man In Black. It is really easy to come here and post a contuation of your "we are all wikipedians" unifying theme, (I am surprised you didn't bring up the idealistic garden analogy again) which completely carpets over the realities of different view points, and the harrassment that this project endured. I would post all the edit diffs and tactics, particuarly be A Man In Black, but that wouldn't change your mind one bit, would it?
My concern of who is or is not a member is secondary. Again, it is really tiring to hear what this project is and is not about by editors whose edit hisitories are clearly contradictory to this articles mission and editors who attempt to subvert everything ARS attempts to do (which all other wikiprojects actively do). You even went so far as saying there is a "pervertion" here. I think what is "perverse" and troubling ironic, is that the co-architect of many of the notabilty guidelines, which is the number one reason given for most of the deletions, is advising ARS on how ARS should or should not act.
Uncle G, Masem, and PhilKnight, don't address my original statment, how all of the other wikiprojects have not had to endure the fierce scrutiny that ARS has, for actions that are exactly the same.
150+ times wikiprojects have mentioned DRVs. 20+ examples are above, and yet there is a firestorm when one DRV is posted here. Unfortunately, that is the history of the project, everything that ARS members attempt to do, there is a firestorm of criticism, mostly from editors whose edit history tends to be contrary to the fundamental ideals of the project. That is why I am inviting editors to go to Wikipedia:Deletion sorting, which has the AFD tags, etc.
But the beahvior hisotry of many of these editors, particularly AMIB, is an incredibly confrontational one, so I know this will be ignored. Ikip (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good points about the other wikiprojects ikip, we dont seem to have a level playing field here! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No one is being confrontational in this section. They are only saying "here is a problem which has been identified, the ARS can solve it themselves and immediately remove the source of most of the criticism of the project." Of course those editors involved are free to carry on spamming AfD with spurious Keep votes, but at least no-one will be able to turn round and say that they're doing it under the banner of the ARS. This ARS editor would be a good place to start - 11 AfD Keep votes in the last few weeks, and every single one either just "Keep", "Strong Keep", or "Keep per (other editor)". If I was closing AfD I'd discount every single one of those, so what's the point? The focus should be on improving articles, not deletion votes. In fact, in a perfect world, the only comment that an ARS member should ever have to add to a deletion discussion is "Look, I've improved this article so that it now meets our policies, what does everyone think of it now?". Black Kite 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Feyd. it is amazing how editors who you would think are strongly opposed to the project, have come here in droves and are now so concerned about ARS. The irony. Ikip (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome ikip. Black kite, the point is that the good work others have done in improving an article will likely be wasted if the consensus at an Afd still seems to be for deletion. And the editor you've picked out has made a number of good edits to several of the articles being edited. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus at an AfD rarely lies with deletion if the article has been improved to an appropriate level. Furthermore, consensus does not change by people spamming "keep" on AfDs. It is at best pointless and at work extremely disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Note, I am notifying the editor that he is mentioned here. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would hope by that logic you would discount all the delete WP:PERNOM as well by those who aren't interested in improving the articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in most cases I'd similarly discount PERNOM as well, just as I would any !vote that was just "Delete". Black Kite 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Refocus

Pretty much covering the basic concerns stated above, also collapsed for navigation}} Discussing what other projects do or don't do seems like a red herring to me. There are two points that have been made above that sum up ARS's role and how it is most effective.

The only comment that an ARS member should ever have to add to a deletion discussion is "Look, I've improved this article so that it now meets our policies, what does everyone think of it now?". Black Kite 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not change by people spamming "keep" on AfDs. It is at best pointless and at work extremely disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When I see people editing in the main space I respect their contributions and discussion points. But when I see that most contributions are in wikipedia space or on talk pages arguing and arguing then its hard to take such editors seriously. This may not be fair but it is reality. I suspect it is also why ARS is in the spotlight again and again. David D. (Talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is David D.'s first edit on the project today, along with Masem, and PhilKnight. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. Or is it? David D. (Talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
full disclosure: I've simply been watching (ARS has been on my watchlist for at least a year) - I'm unaware if anyone canvassed. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well this is why i'm here. And a recent interest in the goals of the project. David D. (Talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And, please don't forget to mention, the recent ANI. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
First, i appreciate that you scored out the comment above. Second, "spotlight" was a metaphor for ANI, "recent interest" was a nod to ANI too and if that was too cryptic for you, if you look at the link I gave you'll see I am quite explicit. David D. (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, again that is generally disparaging towards hundreds of editors. There may be good reasons for a continual spotlight but they also may indicate an over-vigilance. I do appreaciate you weeding through this to find some relevant posts as that can help lead language for why !empty votes are ... empty. Personally I have 3,000+ items, exncluding talkpages, on my watchlist and I've never been caught up. Sometimes I'm inspired to do major work, other times I look to see if sourcing is available etc. and I post my results. It may make sense to actually employ a few bots to suss out which folks are making hollow votes - in any direction and give them a friendly note that they are seemingly wasting their energy and possibly doing more harm than good. If done neutrally I would support this effort and have no problem using formerly rescue-tagged AFDs toward that effort. -- Banjeboi 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Red herring: "Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue."
Um, the original issue is allegations of canvassing.
Again, several editors whose edit history is contradictory to the very ideals of this project, are dictating what ARS should be.
I am also troubled at how suddenly so many editors who have been so critical of this project, ironically come here and preach against canvassing. There are even 3 editors whose views match those critical of the project, who suddenly appeared, and edited for the first time today. These WP:DUCK canvas arguments rarely go anywhere. I apologize to Phil, Masem and David D.
ARS is no different than the other wikiprojects, except our scope is bigger and we have been harrassed more.
I applaud A Nobody for posting articles with problems below, and I encourage all editors to post any problems they have, as hundreds of other wikiprojects do. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not critical of the project, far from it. That you think that says more about you than me. David D. (Talk)
I encourage AMIB and Fram and others who have some doubts about the intent of the project to continue posting here. All WP projects are open. When i see a project where i have by doubts, I simply join it and hope to possibly influence and if not keep watch. I've helped turn around some deletion-oriented projects, and also some projects trying too hard to keep indefensible articles. I also encourage anyone voting blindingly to stop doing so. Whatever one wants to do, it is much more effective to give a reason in one's own words. DGG (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any doubts about the intent of the project, or its good work. I have doubts about misuse of its tools, mostly well-meaning but sometimes not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A new question

Some examples for clarity and more discussion that canvassing is bad; also collapsed for navigation. Is it, fundamentally, a GOOD thing or a bad thing when this happens:

1. Someone sees an article at AfD, and tags it for rescue.
2. Someone (maybe someone else, maybe the same someone) makes some improvements to the article.
3. Several ARS members, going through the category, show up and !vote "keep per improvements"

Good, bad, or depends? Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, because 1) regarding point 2 above, it means the article is improved and 2) regarding point 3 above, it means editors are shown appreciation for their efforts, which is important per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends entirely on the improvements, and the state of the article thereafter, innit? Skomorokh 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Innit indeed. Some articles at Afd can be improved in ways that still do not justify their inclusion, no matter how many !keep votes they subsequently garner. pablohablo. 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Slightly different take on the question:
1. Someone sees an article at AfD, and tags it for rescue.
2. Someone (maybe someone else, maybe the same someone) does a search for sources, finds some, and posts them in the AfD but does not add them to the article.
3. Several ARS members, going through the category, show up and !vote "keep per references found"
Good, bad, or depends? :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm an extreme eventualist, but to me there's not too much difference between the questions: it depends on whether or not the rescuer has shown that the topic can satisfy the criteria for inclusion, i.e. if the sources satisfy WP:GNG. Skomorokh 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That's my take as well, but I suspect other editors may differ, which is why I posed it. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never understood why people post sources in an Afd instead of adding them to the article. Mention that you have edited the article, yes, but stick the sources where they belong. pablohablo. 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I do it because sources don't need to be in the article to affect the AfD, they just need to be shown to exist, and often because I have time to post a few searches (which should have been done by the nom per WP:BEFORE), but not the time to integrate and cite them. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point when time is tight (either for you or the Afd). But given that you have to evaluate the sources and check that they support the text etc, surely sticking them in as a standard <ref>newsourcehere</ref> would be better than including them in a post on a discussion page? You can always reformat the cite if and when the article survives. pablohablo. 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
#3 is a bad thing full stop. #3 is the whole problem here. #3 is historically accompanied with additional fallout not limited to badgering, persistent personal attacks, and cross-wiki retribution (including the perennial presence of the group-vote at RfA, which unlike AfD is largely based on vote-counting). Were #3 to stop, nobody would have any problem with this project whatsoever. This has been made abundantly clear almost every time the problem with ARS is brought up. Certain individuals have made a career out of obfuscating this by implying that #3 is somehow inseparable from #1 and #2. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Not clear which 1.2.3. scenario you're referring to: the first (article improved), the second (AfD updated), or both (i.e. any vote claiming the article's been improved). Surely you can't be saying that improving an article while it's in AfD is wrong? Have I missed the point here? Pointillist (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think what Thumperward is suggesting is that editors patrolling the use of the {{rescue}} tag should stick to improving articles tagged as needing rescue and avoid the associated deletion discussions. Skomorokh 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
They should do both, i.e. improve the articles and discuss the improvements. I would rather hear from those actually willing to look for sources and add them if possible then those who have no interest at all, which is unfortuantely what we frequently run into. They need to comment as well, because a good deal of editors never return to the discussions and so we can have an improved article deleted if it was improved half way through a discussion and no one adequately acknowledges the improvements. Plus, it is necessary to counterbalance some of the copy and paste "delete per noms" we get. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It should never be "necessary to counterbalance" opposing copy-pastes by copy-pasting. This behaviour is precisely what originally got you into trouble. Consensus is not a head count. Fighting fire with fire harms the whole project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't. We shouldn't have indiscriminate copy and paste "per noms". If anything, it should be required that those who comment in AfDs must demonstrate evidence of having looked for sources and attempted to improve the article prior to commenting. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) This is the feedback I was suspecting it might show up. I think it highlights an important cultural/expectation disconnect. If ARS is a place where the first ARS member to see a particular tag'ed article tends to show up and add sources, AND where other editors who show up at a place where sources have been recently added tend to !vote "keep per (sources|improvements)" then it has both a first and second order effect. It's not that ARS is a place to canvass, made up of rabid inclusionists, or anything of the sort. What really happens is that the efforts of one ARS member expand geometrically as the rest of the ARS'ers who swing by note the improvements and !vote accordinlgy. ARS tends to be an improvement multiplier, because it's much less likely for anyone to pile on when an ARS'er posts a "delete-did extensive searches, nothing found" comment. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that part 3 is entirely unneeded. Once the deletionist bogeyman strawman is eliminated, it becomes apparent that in the week-long process by which an AfD is run that if the article is improved significantly in that time then it will be kept whether there are any "keep per improvement" comments from ARS or not. Ideally, ARS should be so divorced from AfD that its members are actively discouraged from participating in AfDs in that their work should be to improve the articles to the point where others judge them to have qualified for inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is we typically have in AfDs accounts that are not exactly qualified to judge, i.e. they come in with an inherent bias wanting to delete regardless of improvement or lacking real knowledge of the subject anyway. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I first encountered you when, after several months of discussion on WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable. You systemically disrupted those AfDs to the effect that they took several times longer than necessary, despite having zero prior contact with the subject matter, mostly with copy-paste keeps due to your ideological bent. I'm trying to have a grown-up argument as to the future direction of ARS. I would ask that you refrain from any further implication as regarding the shade of the kettle. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of the 40 K articles were nominated by someone who was initially named "KillerOfCruft" of all things and who is now blocked. Hardly, an unbiased expert. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
An expert nonetheless, given my interactions with him. As was pointed out when you copy-pasted your opposal to those noms based on the identity of the editor in question, the nominations themselves were not in bad faith. Your opposes were most certainly less well founded. You'd be wise not to continue this line of reasoning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In those discussions, I made many different arguments and posts and given the motivations of the now blocked account, it was pretty clear that that they were disruptive nominations, which is why after all they were not unanimous deletes by any stretch of the imagination. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So turn it round the other way. I can improve an article that's going to be deleted (e.g. Bed management) and ARS members can !vote keep because I'm not a member of ARS and the article never had a rescue tag. Right now, if I improve an article after ARS has tagged it, my contribution is seen as less valuable, and if a self-confessed ARS member improves an article, that would be basically the kiss of death, right? So the ARS should restrict itself to being an administrative function with two or three members who list articles in need of urgent attention and maybe lead some big strategic arguments, but actual improvements and AfD comments should be made by people who don't identify themselves as ARS members and won't vote in a caucus at RfAs. That could work. Is it what Thumperward wants? Pointillist (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by the "kiss of death" comment. For the rest, if an article has already been improved to the point where the hypothetical average editor would deem it worth keeping then there is nothing for ARS to do.
Another possible permutation of your comment (bear in mind that I really don't know what you're getting at) is that in theory the current partisan inclusionists whose participation in ARS is what brings the heat on it could not join ARS and continue to participate in AfDs freely. However, this was basically the status quo prior to said editors having latched onto ARS in the first place. Should this happen then great - ARS would be a non-partisan place for editors to improve articles, while you'd have various non-affiliated editors hassling people at AfD. This moves the heat back off of ARS. I'd be very happy for that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the dimension I had in mind: I was thinking that "partisan" !votes could be the kiss of death at an AfD, but ARS could remain partisan if the actual article improvers weren't members, and I think you are saying that ARS would work better if partisan editors weren't affiliated with it. So basically we agree, though we might need to firm up a few details about horses and stable doors.... Pointillist (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm now convinced that the best way to make the distinction clear is for ARS to divorce itself entirely from actual deletion discussions, dedicating itself entirely to the process of article improvement. That would solve the problem above, as it would drive the serial keepers out of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Three words: "Not gonna happen" If I'm improving an article, I'm going to say as much in the AfD. If I see an article that's been improved by one of my peers, I'm going to evaluate its current state and documented sourcing and !vote appropriately. Take a gander at what I did to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yellow_Star_(Book) (diffs). I'm not giving up that kind of accomplishment, where the AfD nominator congratulates me on the work I've done. I look at your objections to how things are executed and find they're really insignificant and petty compared to saving something like that. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and it turns out the parts I seem to be best at are finding stuff in the trash and fixing it, and all the objections in the world can't tarnish the accomplishments of the ARS members who follow the same path. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
What has your contribution to the AfD done to save the article? Even if you hadn't commented on the AfD others would have noticed your rescue work and opined to keep. Is that AfD indicative of the kind of problematic AfD participation which draws all the heat on ARS? Absolutely not. So why insist that the two are inextricably linked? Fixing ARS means divorcing the good stuff (article rescue) from the bad stuff (attempted vote-stacking, persecution of opponents, eternal projectspace drama). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The first thing it did is gave notice: 1) I believe in it, 2) I've found something so far, and 3) I'm working on it. If you believe that a bunch of keep !votes would have magically materialized without my resetting the tone of the AfD, you have a very different view of AfD than I do. I've made improvements to an article late in the AfD process, only to see them ignored or discounted by closing admins who counted noses. Votestacking can be ignored if it's inappropriate, and harassment should be punished on an individual basis. Project drama... seems to me an invention of those who don't like the ARS. None are a compelling reason to hinder the call to improve articles facing deletion in any way. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I can only say that I categorically disagree that (a) it is truly necessary to have rescuing editors post "keep per my improvements" comments on AfDs to make others take notice; (b) the solution to the long-term problem of disruptive projectspace contributions is to either ignore it or to punish individuals (especially because the issue is not so much individual contributions, but the shepherding of users to act in the certain way en masse); and (c) that the long-term harrassment and drama is "an invention of those who don't like the ARS". I don't think we're likely to see any common ground on those issues, but I've said my piece. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Above you comment on a "deletionist bogeyman strawman" and yet here talk of "partisan inclusionists", a strawman in its own right. The best outcome is that all of us focus on improving articles. These accusations have no basis in a constructive discussion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The term "partisan inclusionist" is being used above as a placeholder for any number of existing editors who act like this already; it is not an artificial construction in the way that the deletionist bogeyman (to wit: an editor who derives joy from deleting good articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia) is frequently used around here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Cruft is by definition a bad thing; the various attempted MfDs to eliminate the word from WP failed because outwith a core group of inclusionists it's not held to be a dirty word. Fredrick Day (for it is he) was indef blocked for a past history of disruptive editing (which I've never condoned) and subsequent socking (which I publicly tried very hard to dissuade him from). He was not blocked for proposing various AfDs in good faith, and those AfDs were imminent anyway (I did a few myself), so this attempt at guilt by association is rather weak. It's curious that you would continually refer to Fredrick Day by the short-lived "killerofcruft" moniker when you yourself changed your name from user:Inclusionist from what I can surmise is precisely the same attempt not to have your edits tainted by your user name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No ones “tainted” by being labelled an inclusionist! It’s a preference that indicates a generous nature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens, yes voting keep is generally a good thing once the articles been sufficiently improved . In an ideal world editors would amend their delete votes to keep after the improvement, but we don’t live in an ideal world, IME of AfD less than one in four change their vote post improvement. Without members of the ARS voting for keep, the consensus would often still appear to be for deletion, articles would be lost, those who’d improved them might be demoralised, and there would be a huge net to the encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that consensus has nothing whatsoever to do with head-counting, and that AfD is not a vote? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ive been advised of the relevant guideline. The reality is there seems a strong correlation between the balance of opinion expressed, as per head count, and the decision of the closing admin. There are exceptions , but usually only when theres an obvious good reason. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Any value in a headcount disappears completely when campaigning for votes is going on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
AMIB, how to reconcile your "campaigning" complaint with this:
"WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable.""
Sounds like the definition of "campaigning" to me. I haven't had time to go through your WP:VG contributions, but I am willing to bet that you have talked at length about deleting articles, or as you call it "campaigning" and "canvassing". I have already seen examples of other editors here bringing up and discussing AfDs actively in their projects. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Campaigning is calling for the support of like-minded editors to back you up. Rallying supporters subverts the ability to count heads in a close. (And, you know, gogo Gadget baseless sweeping accusations.) And weren't you disengaging from me not 12 hours ago? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you are talking about User_talk:Benjiboi#3RR? -- slow down AMIB, you have so many edit wars going on, you can't keep the participants straight :) Ikip (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No. I was talking about the disruptive effect that campaigning has on deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

|}

break for clarity

Another example Going back to the original question, an AfD I put up recently was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witches Hammer. Basically, the article was a mess and I did some looking around and could only find online fansites that talked about the film, so I nominated. Michael Schmidt did some great work cleaning it up, but I still wasn't sure that it was actually notable, because the sources were still only these fansites. I expressed this on the page, but a few other contributors had voted keep, and the admin closed it as keep. Fair enough, I thought. However, after reading through this discussion, I realise that all the Keep votes bar one were from ARS members. What are my thoughts on this? To be honest, it makes me feel a bit uneasy. I certainly think that when voting keep, it should be based on policy, not a comment like "Keep as now improved". Just because an article has been improved does not make it notable. Likewise people sticking an article on AfD should be checking to see whether there are sources to establish notability, whether or not the article is in a bit of a state. Quantpole (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |}

South Park experts

And more, also collapsed The bottom line is that this project is doing everything that every other wikiproject does, except that ARS editors are harassed for doing it. To get back to the original discussion:

Thumperward wrote above:

Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it. Come to WP:FOOTY some time: almost anything posted as an AfD notice there is eventually deleted. Even on projects where more members are of the inclusionist bent (WP:DND comes to mind), deletion discussions are posted there to alert experts on the subject matter...
No bar to entry, anyone can join

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

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

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

We can do it, and hundreds of other projects can do it, but you can't

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

Simpsons "experts"

RE: "WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable."

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

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

Is this acurate?:

Warhammer Wikiproject Project bilateral relations ARS
"Experts" in narrow fields No experts "Experts" in diverse fields
18 members 18 members 244 members
(est.) 12 February 2006 (est.) 18 April 2009 (est.) 13 July 2007
Can post DRVs, AfDs, editor notification Can post DRVs, AfDs, editor notification Cannot post DRVs, AfDs, editor notification

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

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

Anyone whose intentions are primarily to !vote (either way) on AfDs does now just the same as from before this project: they hang around AfD. This project is intended to counter the problem imposed by the short finite length of AfDs--the 5 or 7 day deadline for improving articles. This can only be countered by focusing effort of doing that. I note the response of the people originally !voting for deletion when that happens:the ones in good faith are glad to see the articles improved, and change their !vote. The others typically deny the existence of any improvements using various technical objections to the sources provided, and thus demonstrate their lack of interest in improving the encyclopedia in any positive sense. If there is a net increase in keeps it is presumably due to this. There's of course another possibility-- thee may be among the thousands of Wikipedia editors who aren't active in these process a very considerable number who have broad views on article inclusion, possibly a much higher number than feel the opposite. If an increased number of ordinary editors pay attention to these issues, the actual consensus may be rather different from what some people assume it is. DGG (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there's a legitimate problem when a project has a predetermined point of view. Unfortunately, there was a recent recruiting drive for ARS, where users were selectively notified based on their use of certain userboxes and user categories that favor inclusion. ARS used to be a nonideological group dedicated to article improvement. Now, because of this recent recruiting drive, there is a systemic bias among ARS that favors inclusion. If ARS members are not being linked to discussions that are about inclusion, that's fine: so if they're actually improving articles, they're okay. But when they're called upon to participate in policy discussions that are directly related to inclusion, or discussions are "include versus delete", we're dealing with a legitimate systemic problem. We're talking about votestacking: selectively notifying a group of editors because you feel they have a predetermined point of view.
  • My question to you is if it would be okay for someone to aggressively recruit people with userboxes and user categories favorable to deletion, accumulate them at one venue/project/taskforce, and then post links to policy and AFD discussions from that venue. Randomran (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd love there to be such a project. Better people should do so openly. I'll join and make some constructive comments once a day or so about where they should and should not focus their energy. They already have a tag for articles, in fact, it's the afd notification. But yes, I can see things getting sufficiently polarized that we might need some other way of deciding than the present system. The only correlate in the real world to an afd with voluntary jurors choosing what cases they want to judge, is a lynch mob mobbing. DGG (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
AMIB asked me to withdraw a word I used above, I hope he finds my replacement (in italics) preferable
... really? Not only do you think it would be 100% okay to recruit people with a particular view on inclusion to a single task force, and then post links to deletion/inclusion policy discussions and AFDs... but you'd actually love it, even encourage more of it? Randomran (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You're insisting that you're not a [normal] WikiProject, and you don't act like one (normal WikiProjects post tags on talk pages, for example), but you want to take all the positive benefits of it and none of the restrictions. No, it doesn't work that way. All "you"s in the previous statement are plural and refer to the ARS as a whole. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Randomran, there is such a project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion they have there own {{rescue}} tag, etc, they even have "deletion" in the title.
RE: "ARS used to be a nonideological group dedicated to article improvement"

this is patently absurd, and shows a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the history of this project. ARS has been harrassed long before any drive for new members happened (which, by the way, was completely within wikipedia rules, and is a regular part of all wikiprojects, there are over 269 invitation templates). The three MfD for deletion happened years ago. Look through the 30+ pages of AfDs, it is full of editors who tend to support deletion and merging condeming this project.

RE: "If ARS members [are] called upon to participate in policy discussions that are directly related to inclusion, or discussions are "include versus delete", we're dealing with a legitimate systemic problem."
You just described every wikiproject. But for some reason, outsiders are demading that ARS be different. Two or three editors said that some of the wikiprojects tended to slant towards deletion or inclusion, where is your criticism of these groups, who actively "canvas", post AfDs, post DRVs?
Enough, lets call a spade a spade: hypocricy. There is such a pattern of hypocricy here. The same editors who actively discuss the fate of AFDs and DRVs in their little projects, with like minded editors, are condemning ARS for doing the same thing.
ARS will continue to enjoy the same priveleges of all projects. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
What qualifies you to make such pronouncements? You opened this discussion, and have now announced that it's over, with the conclusions being exactly identical to the ones you made in the first post. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I maybe wrong, but I think I have a have just a little bit more credibility than NUKE AND PAVE articles, and "Cruftkiller" defender does to say what I think is best for the project. Ikip (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course you have more credibility to "say what you think is best for the project". You are in fact the only one qualified to do so. pablohablo. 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You've said what you think is best for the project. Repeatedly and at length, with two section headers in this discussion alone devoted to what you think is best for the project. I believe we're drowning in what you think is best for the project.
Now, what qualifies you to announce that what you think is best for the project is what will happen from here on, as you just did? From what authority do you draw your conclusion that "ARS will continue to" do anything? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, I have much more credibility to say what ARS can and can't do. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? Tell me why you have credibility, not why random other people don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Why, why are you involved in this wikiproject? Two 3rrs in the past couple of days here, massive edit warring even now on this and other pages, is this the behavior of an admin? Ikip (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That isn't an answer to my question. Where's your credibility? From what authority do you make pronouncements like "ARS will continue to enjoy the same priveleges of all projects"? Ikip, you're not an article rescuer. What are you doing here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I could never give you an answer to your satification, I have had enough of the continued baiting and harrassment AMIB. This is not the behavior of an admin. Ikip (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not getting an answer because there isn't one. Ikip, you're a bad example and an agitator here, and shame on me and everyone for being agitated, but it's time to stop. Keep arguing at AFD, keep improving articles, keep doing whatever else you want, but stop posting on this page, as threads like this are not productive.
My hands are not clean, but you started this thread to suggest that people leave this project alone. I propose you leave this project alone, so that everyone who is here to moderate or oppose your disruption can also leave it alone. I'm increasingly starting to realize I've fallen into the trap of ascribing to Banjeboi in particular and the project in general the bad faith I have repeatedly seen exhibited by you alone (and for that I am sorry). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL!! I've noticed you've a good sense of humour MIB and you've outdone yourself here. As if you can waltz into a project and suggest one of its leading members departs! I can see how it might suit deletionists for us to loose ikip , but its not going to happen. Ikip, it may be an option to stay away from the page for a day or two and let them talk themselves out. No matter what they say or how vehement they are about it I doubt many squad members will let their conduct be influenced by these characters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite him inviting you here, he's not a leading member. DGG and Banjeboi and A Nobody are leading members. Ikip is coopting this project in order to have a favorable venue to recruit support for disputes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked that people think it's 100% okay to recruit people based on ideology, get them to coalesce at one venue, and then link them to discussions where they can exert ideological influence. Isn't this the very definition of votestacking? But if everyone thinks this is fine, then I guess we actively *like* a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to discussion? Randomran (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not you or I, but seriously now, and I mean this not sarcastically. I truly am beginning to get the impression that some do indeed actually prefer a "battleground" atmosphere to actually helping to improve article. There's a point of not taking WP:AGF to being naive, and given what we know about human nature, not everyone can mean well. So, what is key is to avoid getting dragged into these discussions, taking the high ground, and improving articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • There's won't be a highground without accountability. If we permit one editor to selectively recruit based on inclusion philosophy, and subsequently link to numerous discussion pages, then we're going to have a lot more discussions and a lot less article improvement. Not just because they'll start doing it, but because other people with other inlucion philosophies will too. But if we say that it's unacceptable to organize an entire inclusion-philosophy -- either inclusionist or deletionist -- at a Wikipedia space and link to talk page discussions, then we'll spend a lot less time at those respective talk pages. If we stop it, we get back to articles. If we don't stop it, the discussions will continue, no matter how much we hate them. Randomran (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That "one editor" is code for me. Randomran, I am sorry that you worked so hard on WP:FICT which would have buried or deleted hundreds of articles that contributors made, and that I came along and posted a neutral message on a couple of hundred fiction article talk pages, which may have been part of the reason that WP:FICT failed for a third time (you can't hold me responsible for the failure of the first two, and I think three makes a trend). I am sorry that two admins said the template was okay to post before hand, and that I followed all the rules. I am sorry that sanctions were not leeved against me when an editor posted a complaint about this on ANI.
No one has ever argued that I didn't follow the rules. An admin recently had his block reversed because I allegedy:
  1. "push[ed] the boundaries of WP:CANVASS",
  2. "various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS",
  3. "Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING...following only the letter of the rules"
  4. "continues to walk the line any way he can"
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT RULES OF CANVAS CHANGE THEM. But don't punish or complain about editors who follow the rules.
Again, Randomran is here complaining about ARS following the rules, doing something that all the wikiprojects do themselves with no harrassment what-so-ever.
Ikip (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Aside from these tension raising discussions, I don't see any evidence than anything detrimental to the project actually resulted. If you're referring to Ikip, then even for what he was blocked, the alleged canvassing, didn't seem to actually result in anyone showing up at the AfD and if he isn't doing anything any more, then it is beating a dead horse. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ikip, you need to calm down and assume good faith. I'm here to provide an outside opinion that's neither inclusionist or deletionis, and discuss a behavioral issue. I'm not here to be "vindictive", and I resent that you're trying to make this about inclusion philosophy when this is about behavior. DGG and ikip both think it's okay to recruit in this way, me and A Nobody don't think it's okay, but we need to get away from the usual suspects and ask independent Wikipedians if this behavior is helpful or detrimental to consensus-building. Randomran (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's permissible to recruit in this way, but I do not think it desirable. Recruitment will come naturally from seeing the work. The project should focus on the original goal (I was the 8th person to join, about 2 years ago) : rescuing a few articles at a time, choosing carefully on the basin of both importance of the article and the likelihood of success. Focussing attention on articles for their possible improvement is one of the beneficial side effects of the AfD process, and this project was meant to facilitate that part. The fact that it can improve articles will encourage others to try also. Perhaps it will even encourage those nominating articles to search first, to avoid possible embarrassment. DGG (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that if the project were to focus on its original goal we'd have all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. I'd hope that everyone would be able to drop it. But the problem is that the cat is out of the bag, with a highly discriminatory inclusionist-based recruitment drive in February, followed by a lot of links to miscellaneous discussions from this page, such as policy discussions. I'm not really sure how to stop it, and put ARS back on its original footing. Randomran (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Randomran, as I have been reminded up above, this is not the forum to talk about behavioral issues, as much as I would like too myself.
I never stated you were either inclusionist or deletionist, in fact, I don't think I have used that term once here in this discussion, practically everyone has, but I have avoided it.
I am always a little leery of those who enter a discussion saying "I am a neutral" party, I am an outside party, here to help. I have seen too many "neutral parties" willing to jump in at ANI and "help" who are incredible enamoured to one side.
In this case, we had a history together on WP:FICT so I know your stance Randomran. I have been in a lot of AFDs were editors quoted WP:FICT to get an article deleted. So I apologize for my extreme skeptisism.
Fritzpoll, regardless of his views, pulls off the "helpful outsider" much better, because his stance, at least to me, is an unknown.
Randomran, the concerned outsider, attempting to dictate what ARS should and should not do, and always, always, saying he only has the best interest of ARS in mind. How many times have I heard this in the past couple of days here? From editors, sometimes, whose entire editing career has been to delete articles. It rings hollow.
The reality, regardless of feel good we are all "wikipedians" speeches is that there is Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia sides on wikipedia, and pretty much everyone leans one way or another. Even you, Randomran, lean one way, you heavily promoted and advocated for FICT, which would have deleted and merged thousands of articles. Ikip (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the accusations of bad faith. WP:FICT wasn't my proposal and does not represent my leanings. If I pushed hard for it, it was only because I wanted to see something that would keep more articles than the current WP:GNG, which is a stricter standard than WP:FICT that is being used to delete articles every day.
Wikipedia works on consensus, and I find it ironic that you're attacking me for dictating when you're ignoring all other input and appointing yourself the unilateral decision maker of what ARS can and cannot do. I'm only pointing out there's a legitimate issue, and yes I have an opinion on it. But we're not going to resolve this until a neutral group of Wikipedians can decide whether this is appropriate behavior. You're 100% that this is not the time of the place. If I have a role to play, it's in pointing out that there are ways of obtaining neutral feedback, and we should work on that, so we can resolve this once and for all. One side dictating to the other is not going to work. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

|}

Motion to close and archive this 100k thread

Hopefully everyone feels they've been able to express their frustrations and now we can move on towards solutions that fit in with community protocols. Personally I'm willing to work on solutions that focus on civilly and neutrally addressing concerns raised. All the discussion that centers on canvassing and inclusionism vs deletionism should likely be put on hold until some constructive solutions appropriate for any Wikiproject are thoughtfully considered. We aren't here to battle but to collaborate and work with one another to improve the encyclopedia. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

  • Support as nom. As long as we are making forward movement we can always refer back for cognitive talking points. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't really the forum for this discussion anymore, because we all know how each other feels. My hope is still that ARS will voluntarily stop (or at least scale back) its links to various talk pages, and stick with its original mandate of tagging articles at AFD and improving them. But if the drama hits a boiling point again, I think the best thing for both sides is to get an independent group of editors to look at both sides of the votestacking/campaigning issue, and make a decision that puts the issue to rest. If it comes to that, I hope that we can at least collaborate on how we present the issue before we solicit feedback. Randomran (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support I was just thinking the same thing. Can we make sure not to have the collapsable sections when it is archived? It is hard to find things later. Ikip (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_34&oldid=1144713068"