Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 36
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Right tea and biscuits and let's have a calm chat
| Lengthy discussion collapsed for navigation. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi there - I've been watching this page actively for the past few days and I think the above discussion and the past few edits to this page indicate that tempers are flaring and that there is an ongoing dispute. Now, I am not a member of the ARS, so I apologise in advance if my intervention is unwelcome, but perhaps a third-opinion would be useful here? Looking back over the past few months, there seems to be a conflict based on some misunderstandings (as ever) mixed with some genuine concerns. The common thread to many of the discussions is a question: what is the ARS for? And the conflicts arise when there is an apparent difference between what the project page says and what the ARS is doing. The page says, in crude terms, that the project goes and tries to source and cleanup articles that are at AfD in an effort to rescue useful content. I think it would be impossible for any editor to argue that rescuing useful, good content is a bad thing (although we may all vary in our definition of "good" and "useful"). In recent times, the project has expanded with proposals for handling all XfDs, being actively involved as a group in examining policy/guideline alterations that affect arguments at XfD, etc. This is where a lot of conflict lies, because it doesn't coincide with the stated goals of the ARS. I think there is a resolution in two parts:
Now, I obviously think that this is a good way forward - what is happening now, where there is an endless tug of war, where the only solutions to the dispute being put forward are topic bans, blocks and the like, is not sustainable. I am willing to help set up an RfC with you if I am wanted (not essential) - make sure it is neutrally worded so there can be no accusations of bias. In turn, both sides may have to accept that the community wants/doesn't want things you don't agree with. But at the end of the day, we all come to Wikipedia to make a good encyclopedia, and we can't do that without resolving disputes like this amicably. Please give it some thought. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Questions that need answering
Ok, there seems to e a rough consensus for an RfC. To answer Schmidt's question above, I would suggest a posting to WP:VPP and WP:CENT, which would not canvass any side specifically - I'm open to other suggestionsm but for the sake of propriety, I would be wary of any individual talk page postings. Hopefully there can be some agreement on that before the RfC opens.
So, what questions need answering? I suggest that if there is a question that needs answering, we start a new subsection below and discuss how to present the wording of the pro and con argument for the community to consider. I have a few ideas, but I'll just set up a sample or two below to get the ball rolling - what I write isn't set in stone, it is a distilation of the sides as I see it, and further discussion can add, remove or refine. Add subsections, go wild, but stay civil. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposal 1: ARS should participate in non-article XfD discussions like other wikiprojects.
| reclosed. -- Banjeboi 10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
I think this is acceptably summarised, but I must admit the possibility of fault. I suggest discussion of this in terms of whether this is an acceptable way to present the question, rather than spending further time debating the validity of the opposing positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this a resolved issue? The last RFC wrapped up with the conclusion that it's an appropriate use of the tag if the non-article could be fixed up to resolve the deletion argument, and inapprpriate otherwise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Motion to reclose Proposal 1This proposal although perhaps well-intended is only rehashing previous discussions. The recenetly closed RfC - affirmed by univolved admins because even the close was argued about - affirmmed that non-article XfDs were acceptable, ergo this proposal is malformed and will be IMHO a waste of community energy. The core issue was non-neutral posts to this page seen as canvassing and the fallout to the reactions to those posts and that where any energy should be vectored.
|
Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussions
| Collapsed for navigation | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
May need some expansion/cleaning up, but this seems to summarise the different positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Motion to close Proposal 2This is another proposal that is interesting but also, IMHO, a waste of community energy. All Wikiprojects are notified of XfD, policy discussions, RfC's etc. This isn't changing and the issue remains keeping those notices neutral. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Proposal 3: Article Rescue Squadron can conduct itself like other wikiprojects.
| Boldy hatting this one as off-topic enough to be unhelpful. The issue remains some behaviours rather than a philosophical discussion of Wikiprojects' rights and responsibilities. -- Banjeboi 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
Again, trying to summarise the two sides of this dispute. Undoubtedly overlaps with Proposal 2, but is sufficiently distinct. It may be possible to combine them. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this whole section is off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter if this is or isn't a Wikiproject. It only matters insofar as Ikip has made the argument that Wikiprojects have inalienable rights. The argument on whether this is a Wikiproject or not is a distraction from "What is the utility of doing [thus and so]?" If there's no good reason to do something here, then it doesn't really matter what other Wikiprojects do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Proposal 4: Article Rescue Squadron can be directly notified of other discussions, including policy talk pages
| Background |
|---|
| ARS is a maintenance Wikiproject and as such neutral notifications on policy and XfD discussions is part and parcel to what they do. This is no different than any other Wikiproject and, in fact, is commonplace. However, in February 2009, an editor independently invited 300 others with "inclusionist" templates to join ARS. Since then, membership expanded from 130 to 250. It remains unclear which of these editors were compelled to join from the invite; how many follow an inclusionist ideology or any measurable impact on ARS or at AfD or policy discussions. Because of the increase in membership, however, there is perceptions that notifying ARS risks biasing these discussions. XfDs, however, are not a vote and policy discussions center on consensus as well; ARS maintains neutrality. |
Seems to be the important one, although the other questions cannot be ignored - partly adapted from Randomeran's suggestion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this addition. I suspect this is the most contentious issue. The others aren't so bad: XfD's are not a vote, and ARS usually succeeds on the merits of their improvements to an article. But this one is trickier. Either way, I'm comfortable working out a phrasing that presents both sides of the issue, and then puts it to a fresh group of editors. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Zero for four I'm afraid. This one too seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. I think the real question you're looking for is how can ARS neutrally and within community standards handle posts that sem to be violating canvassing? This has been answered a few times and the correct answer is not deleting anything. If something is waaay over the top I could see adding a {{hat}} and {{hab}} and restating the request neutrally but in my experience none of that was really needed. If anything deserves closer community-wide scrutiny it would be the reaction to perceived canvassing threads and an overly-aggressive stance of mischaracterizing this entire project thereby turning this very talkpage into a battlefield. Nothing at WP:Canvass suggests we pillory people and break out the pitchforks against a monster. Our civility policies are pretty clear we don't do this. Let's pretend those who post notifications here have rather good intentions. The rest is just working to see that those notices are neutral. This really hasn't been that big of an issue until the re-actions became a bit over-heated. Does anybody seriously think you're going to stop ARS, get the project deleted? Stop notifications of other discussions, etc.? It's really not. What remains then is for the very few people who have been posting the "alarming" posts to craft neutral messages and for those who have been raising alarms to really look at if there is any noticable damage if a not is non-NPOV, if so, simply state, this needs to be refactored or otherwise mitigated to ease neutrality concerns. You really don't need the community to spell this out. Likewise we're not about to topic ban anyone from here who is willing to modify their approach towards working with other editors here. I really don't see a need for any RfCs at the moment nor a strong need to elect or appoint one or more people to police or patrol or otherwise watch over this page and project. We will always have newbies who will make mistakes and our mandate is to help them. I would be very embarrassed if they were treated hostily instead bacause they were honestly just trying to save anarticle they felt was worth keeping. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The reason you think this is a colossal waste of energy is probably because you don't think there's a problem. Obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree, or else this discussion wouldn't have started in the first place. I think you should be entitled to present this as a non-problem, and I think you should do your best to present it as such. But the complaints won't go away just because you declare it a non-problem. It will take a group of independent editors say these four issues are non-problems (or that any one of them are indeed problems, and need to be addressed). Nobody is trying to stop ARS from improving articles, or get ARS deleted, or even get anyone in trouble. It's just about keeping ARS on task, and there are legitimate disagreements about what that task is. That's what an RFC will accomplish. After that, there won't be much to argue about. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Banjeboi, I'm afraid as I've worked through reading the disputes on this page, I can see that you don't perceive there to be a problem. Unfortunately, that is always the nature of a dispute - one side thinks an action is appropriate, so can't understand why the other side is kicking up a fuss. Unfortunately, there is a dispute over these points, and unless we get our heads out of the sand, you guys will be going around and around in circles over them. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, I disagree with your recent use of {{hat}}/{{hab}} to collapse active discussions. You've made your objections to the proposals known. Maybe you could ask Fritzpoll or a neutral uninvolved admin to effect any early closes? Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As I stated above, my opinion on this is: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good way of putting it. I think the problem stems from the fact that many self-selected ARS participants want to do both, and their actions with respect to the latter are confused by some as being ARS-sanctioned. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- More that ARS is being used as a springboard for the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly no more than it's being used by deletionists to distract participants from actually fixing articles, it would seem. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do refrain from tossing off accusations of bad faith or conspiracy if you can't back them up. Not everything undertaken in good faith is a good idea or will have good results, and conversely not everything with bad results was undertaken in bad faith.
- If you think anyone is here to purposefully disrupt things, kindly name names and explain how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly no more than it's being used by deletionists to distract participants from actually fixing articles, it would seem. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- More that ARS is being used as a springboard for the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of ARS working to change policies so that more articles are kept. I see individual editors invested in discussions that certainly may effect those like the recently created bilateral blah-de-da taskforce that will help find a path forward for hundreds of related articles. These types of discussions always go on and it's rather odd to think this or any wikiproject wouldn't be somewhat interested in discussions that affect the work they do. If we are working on, for instance, five bilateral blah-de-da articles and a task force is discussing how to re-organize those articles, it certainly makes sense to bring oursleves up to date on those discussions. Likewise when we had dozens of articles on minor league sports teams and no notability guideline. I think we suggested that discussing if a guideline should exist would make sense. Did we create, run and vote keep everything, hardly. We just tried to address each article on it's own merits because no guideline did exist. We also coached the main editor in soem possible routes forward so they wouldn't end up creating 20-30 articles that were also then mostly deleted. Frankly I see us as often bringing dispassionate editors to subjects they would likely never touch otherwise - I personally have little to no interest in most sports subjects - so helping offer input (here is what policy states, here are options, what makes sense?) can be quite helpful. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record - this again is not can a project be notified issue but how should non-NPOV notifications be effectively handled. I think this section should also close as being repetitious to many previous discussions. Everyone agrees that notifications should be NPOV. No one will get support that projects can't be notified. What remains is how should any project deal with non-NPOV messages. This doesn't require an RfC at all. Seems like some civil and thoughtful suggestion should be discussed that would apply to all projects. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- As stated above, it might be different if ARS were dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. But what we have now is a group that was assembled by recruiting 300 people with specific views on content and then linking them to content policy discussions. It's pretty obvious what will happen when people get an invite because "you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability", and then they are linked about discussions about notability guidelines. But in principle, this selective-recruitment and discussion-linking shouldn't happen for any content viewpoint and policy. Again, an invite based on a viewpoint isn't polarizing in of itself, but doing that hundreds of times and linking them to a relevant policy discussion is problematic. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually ARS is dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. with the qualifier "on notable subjects". You are presuming that those who work on tagged articles are members and that everyone (or most) were recruited. I wasn't and this project was plenty busy before I showed up. One can theorize that there is some net effect but personally I've not seen any major upswing in participation, articles tagged or discussions swayed greatly and certainly not in any cohesive or organized effort. In fact when the invite tag was first employed it seemed a bit non-neutral and was replaced by a neutral one. That's pretty much what has happened every time something came along that seemed problematic. Getting back on point - any project can be notified of discussion impacting their work. Notices should be kept brief and NPOV. for those that wish to ascribe to inclusionism there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion; likewise Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion may befit those who see a calling to removing items. ARS is neither and has rebuffed either POV. If another seemingly well-intended editor mass invited a pile of editors who ascribed to deletionism ARS would not work to remove them, shame them, coerce or otherwise marginalize them. It is our job as Wikipedians to welcome them. We don't pin badges on anyone accept a welcome tag if they sign up as members. Personally I deal with so many editors and articles I'm rather forced to just treat everything on a case by case basis. Assess it, act accordingly and move on. My experience with some of the questionable postings is that I'm rather immune to pleas of please keep my article or those meanines are trying to delete ____. I think other ARS folks may be along the same lines. Meh, whatever, I'll poke in and see if I can offer anything. We simply aren't to be discounted as the army of like-minded inclusionists as many of these pointy threads would have anyone believe. Are some members? Likely, but I really don't care if they are doing ARS work and helping improve articles. Am I in any way interested in a witch hunt? No. We have the survey idea which seems to be showing support. If we a figure a way to make it happen it could be repeated in a few months then looked at to see if there are repeaters. The goal remains to help editors do better. This proposal can also be ended, IMHO, per WP:Snow. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Snow closing a discussion because only you say so seems a little...off. I think this is the most likely to end up at RfC Fritzpoll (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say I really have anything new to say, and I don't think I'm going to persuade you. I'll just say that I think you understate the effect of recruiting 300 people with inclusionist templates. Regardless of how neutrally the invite was phrased, the invites were sent purely to build a roster of people with a specific content view. That bias doesn't really affect article improvement, so I actually agree with you on that much. Regardless of peoples' viewpoint on content, they'll either improve the article to make it meet our guidelines, or they won't. The problem is when a roster narrowly built upon a specific content view is invited to craft our content policy. Not just because of what it means every time that ARS's new roster talks policy, but because of what it means if other content viewpoints organize a roster in the same way. We would essentially have armies and generals, and thus endless wars. You might not see that as legitimate problem, but other people do, including me. So let's put that question to the community. Worst thing that happens is I'm wrong, and there's no problem, and clearly state ARS's new scope. Even though it wouldn't be the result I want, that would be good for everyone because we can get closure, and people will be able to leave each other alone. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- First off you keep misleading that we recruited 300 people. We didn't recruit anyone, a sole editor did. It was agreed that any editor could recruit to any Wikiproject but in response we created a neutral ARS invite template. There is no evidence that the recruitment has had any net effect on discussions and ARS never took place in a recruitment drive. Then we build on this wobbly premise - y'know that all those who are ARS members would be swayed to an inclusionist POV - that these now converted ARS talkpage watchers will suddenly show up and all vote keep or whatever the inclusionist POV on some policy discussion and further that that won't be quickly dismissed as empty votes if that's all they are. ARS scope hasn't grown or even changed - the last RfC simply clarified that TfD (and likely other XfDs) were officially ok. This unfounded worry that POV armies of policy fighters will assembly and rise up is rather pointy and seems if it were sent to any RfC it wouldn't mention ARS at all. We are not a unique Wikiproject just one that a handful of editors strongly object to because of thier disdain against all things "inclusionist" and their concern that ARS is swaying toward some POV because of one editors' work. Again this remains a user conduct issue that most editors are simply not that troubled over. No RfC is needed to address these issues. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who did it, it only matters that the recruitment drive happened, and it does have an impact. And again, if ARS is being singled out for being inclusionist, it's being singled out in the same way that any group with such a viewpoint-specific recruiting drive should be singled out. It's not up to either of us to decide if it's okay. That's why we're having the RFC. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It does matter to clarify that ARS never sanctioned a recruitment drive and this was undertaken by one editor - who, when blocked for it, was unblocked as no canvassing was found to have occurred. No impact or harm has shown to have occurred either. Discussion and XfD are not votes but a consensus process. Volume of votes, in theory that ARS has done any block voting, may have an impact but more likely quality of discussion will be teh greater measure. Even policy decisions that are flawed are, in theory, amended and clarified to fix areas that need correcting. Wikipedia is an organic project - it changes and grows. If a policy is great one year and then needs modificatins we do so. I've yet to see a case where ARS either block voted or otherwise negatively impacted some discussion bringing harm to the encyclopedia and this entire thread is one massive pile of assuming bad faith. If Ikip sucessfully recruited some inclusionists as far as i can tell the worst thing that would happen is they waste some energy casting empty !votes. guess what? That was happening before ARS ever existed and would happen regardless if we were here. The likely net result is encyclopedic content will more likely be kept in some form. I see that as a good thing. Can we move on now to finding actual solutions addressing the actual concerns? -- Banjeboi 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant discussion is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive517#Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip. You are correct that there was no consensus for administrator action against Ikip at that time. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- It does matter to clarify that ARS never sanctioned a recruitment drive and this was undertaken by one editor - who, when blocked for it, was unblocked as no canvassing was found to have occurred. No impact or harm has shown to have occurred either. Discussion and XfD are not votes but a consensus process. Volume of votes, in theory that ARS has done any block voting, may have an impact but more likely quality of discussion will be teh greater measure. Even policy decisions that are flawed are, in theory, amended and clarified to fix areas that need correcting. Wikipedia is an organic project - it changes and grows. If a policy is great one year and then needs modificatins we do so. I've yet to see a case where ARS either block voted or otherwise negatively impacted some discussion bringing harm to the encyclopedia and this entire thread is one massive pile of assuming bad faith. If Ikip sucessfully recruited some inclusionists as far as i can tell the worst thing that would happen is they waste some energy casting empty !votes. guess what? That was happening before ARS ever existed and would happen regardless if we were here. The likely net result is encyclopedic content will more likely be kept in some form. I see that as a good thing. Can we move on now to finding actual solutions addressing the actual concerns? -- Banjeboi 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who did it, it only matters that the recruitment drive happened, and it does have an impact. And again, if ARS is being singled out for being inclusionist, it's being singled out in the same way that any group with such a viewpoint-specific recruiting drive should be singled out. It's not up to either of us to decide if it's okay. That's why we're having the RFC. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- First off you keep misleading that we recruited 300 people. We didn't recruit anyone, a sole editor did. It was agreed that any editor could recruit to any Wikiproject but in response we created a neutral ARS invite template. There is no evidence that the recruitment has had any net effect on discussions and ARS never took place in a recruitment drive. Then we build on this wobbly premise - y'know that all those who are ARS members would be swayed to an inclusionist POV - that these now converted ARS talkpage watchers will suddenly show up and all vote keep or whatever the inclusionist POV on some policy discussion and further that that won't be quickly dismissed as empty votes if that's all they are. ARS scope hasn't grown or even changed - the last RfC simply clarified that TfD (and likely other XfDs) were officially ok. This unfounded worry that POV armies of policy fighters will assembly and rise up is rather pointy and seems if it were sent to any RfC it wouldn't mention ARS at all. We are not a unique Wikiproject just one that a handful of editors strongly object to because of thier disdain against all things "inclusionist" and their concern that ARS is swaying toward some POV because of one editors' work. Again this remains a user conduct issue that most editors are simply not that troubled over. No RfC is needed to address these issues. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually ARS is dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. with the qualifier "on notable subjects". You are presuming that those who work on tagged articles are members and that everyone (or most) were recruited. I wasn't and this project was plenty busy before I showed up. One can theorize that there is some net effect but personally I've not seen any major upswing in participation, articles tagged or discussions swayed greatly and certainly not in any cohesive or organized effort. In fact when the invite tag was first employed it seemed a bit non-neutral and was replaced by a neutral one. That's pretty much what has happened every time something came along that seemed problematic. Getting back on point - any project can be notified of discussion impacting their work. Notices should be kept brief and NPOV. for those that wish to ascribe to inclusionism there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion; likewise Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion may befit those who see a calling to removing items. ARS is neither and has rebuffed either POV. If another seemingly well-intended editor mass invited a pile of editors who ascribed to deletionism ARS would not work to remove them, shame them, coerce or otherwise marginalize them. It is our job as Wikipedians to welcome them. We don't pin badges on anyone accept a welcome tag if they sign up as members. Personally I deal with so many editors and articles I'm rather forced to just treat everything on a case by case basis. Assess it, act accordingly and move on. My experience with some of the questionable postings is that I'm rather immune to pleas of please keep my article or those meanines are trying to delete ____. I think other ARS folks may be along the same lines. Meh, whatever, I'll poke in and see if I can offer anything. We simply aren't to be discounted as the army of like-minded inclusionists as many of these pointy threads would have anyone believe. Are some members? Likely, but I really don't care if they are doing ARS work and helping improve articles. Am I in any way interested in a witch hunt? No. We have the survey idea which seems to be showing support. If we a figure a way to make it happen it could be repeated in a few months then looked at to see if there are repeaters. The goal remains to help editors do better. This proposal can also be ended, IMHO, per WP:Snow. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- As stated above, it might be different if ARS were dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. But what we have now is a group that was assembled by recruiting 300 people with specific views on content and then linking them to content policy discussions. It's pretty obvious what will happen when people get an invite because "you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability", and then they are linked about discussions about notability guidelines. But in principle, this selective-recruitment and discussion-linking shouldn't happen for any content viewpoint and policy. Again, an invite based on a viewpoint isn't polarizing in of itself, but doing that hundreds of times and linking them to a relevant policy discussion is problematic. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- As with Proposal 2, I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. The editing of the Pro section is fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Revision which neutralizes the context. Throwing gas on an ember is not WP:NPOV, however, dousing the spark is. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- If we are genuinely trying to find solutions then we should do so neutrally. Both pro and con verbiage should remian neutral. -- Banjeboi 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, I think we should work to represent both sides fairly. But to the degree we respect neutrality, it's to present both sides of the argument fairly, to the degree that they reflect the actual facts and disagreement. I've altered it once again to try to be more neutral, and present both sides. But if there are any outstanding issues, it would be helpful to know what they are. I'd happily rewrite it myself, and think that would be more productive than the "pro" side writing the arguments for both sides. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote a detailed comment above that applies to this section also. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- NPOV is rather non-negotiable. Focussing on non-issues doesn't help address real concerns. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's unfair that you get to rephrase the issue, and then argue that it's a non-issue that should not even be discussed. NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, but if you want to use it, I think you're misinterpreting it:
- "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."
- There is no issue without multiple conflicting perspectives, is the first thing. If both the pro and con argument agree "there is no issue", then there will be no issue. So to the extent that the perspectives conflict, I'm trying to verify them with diffs. You're entitled to interpret those diffs in a way that there is no problem, no systemic bias in ARS, no risk of further battleground activity if other project spaces follow suit. But you're not entitled to just remove the argument that there's a problem in order to assert "there is no problem".
- I'm willing to work on the "con" argument if you can offer specific constructive criticisms. Randomran (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you're missing why focussing a propsal statement on the actions of one editor, acting independently, as justifying sanctioning an entire Wikiproject is quite POV. That you're also missing that conflating those newly added members as somehow having any negative influence without evidence and extrapolating this to potential harm on policy discussions, again with no evidence, seems synthesis. Staying on point here, the core question is cana Wikiproject be notified of policy discussions - the answer remains "if kept neutral there really is no issue." -- Banjeboi 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming the policy discussion are relevant. Links to irrelevant policy discussions, replaced after being removed, call into question why those links are being added in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two points: (i) If they aren't neutrally stated then we civilly work to address that and (ii) any irrelevant things will be posted to Wikiprojects, these as well should be handled civilly - I'm not sure this has much to do with us here, perhaps ___ would be better?, etc. - as we try to help each other. In some cases you may be mistaken and the thread may bring about a healthy idea that may positively effect the "irrelevant" thread. In addition ARS regulars, members or otherwise, cover a fairly wide birth; give that I'm fairly confident that someone with more knowledge than I can help suss out if something will impact what we do. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as a case in point, when someone said outright "Come back me up at WP:FICT" and I removed only the links, you replaced them and accused me of (vaguely explained) bad faith. So perhaps there are civility and relevance problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two points: (i) If they aren't neutrally stated then we civilly work to address that and (ii) any irrelevant things will be posted to Wikiprojects, these as well should be handled civilly - I'm not sure this has much to do with us here, perhaps ___ would be better?, etc. - as we try to help each other. In some cases you may be mistaken and the thread may bring about a healthy idea that may positively effect the "irrelevant" thread. In addition ARS regulars, members or otherwise, cover a fairly wide birth; give that I'm fairly confident that someone with more knowledge than I can help suss out if something will impact what we do. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming the policy discussion are relevant. Links to irrelevant policy discussions, replaced after being removed, call into question why those links are being added in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you're missing why focussing a propsal statement on the actions of one editor, acting independently, as justifying sanctioning an entire Wikiproject is quite POV. That you're also missing that conflating those newly added members as somehow having any negative influence without evidence and extrapolating this to potential harm on policy discussions, again with no evidence, seems synthesis. Staying on point here, the core question is cana Wikiproject be notified of policy discussions - the answer remains "if kept neutral there really is no issue." -- Banjeboi 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's unfair that you get to rephrase the issue, and then argue that it's a non-issue that should not even be discussed. NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, but if you want to use it, I think you're misinterpreting it:
- NPOV is rather non-negotiable. Focussing on non-issues doesn't help address real concerns. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. Yes a perfect example where removing the links themselves was hardly needed and civil discussion could have resolved the perceived harm that may have occurred. Again, a user issue not a project issue. -- Banjeboi 04:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Motion to close Proposal 4 as well
Article Rescue Squadron can be directly notified of other discussions, including policy talk pages - does this not seem fairly obvious that any Wikiproject can be notified neutrally? I think so, the rest remains vaguely interesting but hardlt swaying anyone that this remains a behaviour and civility issue rather than an ARS issue. Endless and circular discussions are impeding efforts to make positive and constructive changes. This entire thread shoudl also be closed, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. as nom. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
30K of copy-pasting from stale discussions
| Boldly hatting this thread as a bit pointy and maybe deflecting constructive movement forward off track. Regardless what motivates those posting these issues, they are welcome to make constructive criticism just as any other editor is. Already many changes have been implemented and more are being discussed as a direct result of the concerns being raised. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
Lets just call a spade a spade there are three issues I see here:
Here is an example of how FICT is canvassed and discussed on other wikiprojects. WITH ABSOLUTLY NO COMPLAINTS THAT THIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED, not once. Indeed, many of the editors complaining about ARS here, openly and actively canvas and discuss policy in other wikiprojects. Keep in mind that this is only regarding FICT, other, more popular guidelines are 20 times as big.
I know the foxes petitioning to guard the hen house will not be pursuaded. "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Ikip (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Time to open the RfC
Right, I think we have enough discussion here to establish opening an RfC on Proposals 2 and 4. I'm not sure about the status of Proposal 1 since it has been reopened, but a prior RfC has just concluded. I'd suggest doing the RfC on an ARS subpage at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/RfC May 2009 or similar, listing at WP:RFC, and notifying at WP:VPP and on WP:CENT as well as including a link on this page. I'd establish that there is no need for individual editors to be contacted on this - for a neutral outside view, we need to not notify any individual directly. After a week or two, we can ask a neutral admin (not me, I hasten to add) to close the discussion on the RfC and see what the consensus is. That is, not a poll, although a straw poll format might be adopted. Any thoughts before I go ahead and do this? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly opposed This remains another disruption to this Wikiproject and needs to stop. POV against inclusionism is fine on individual userpages but thi sWikiproject remains neutral welcoming all editors. If you can't see that targetting ARS in this fashion is divisive then I see pushing for malformed RfC's as more disruption. The issue has always been about specific editor's conduct. The few who engaged in posting non-neutral messages and those who acted rather incivilly towards them. Wasting the community energy on - yet another - RfC is not a constructive way forward and none of the proposals addressed the core issue. Likewise an RfC singling out any Wikiproject is doomed to failure. We don't make special rules as such. We have policies that notices should be neutral. We have policies on civility. If you want to discuss if Wikiprojects can be notified of policy discussion (hint: the answer is yes) you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council if an RfC would be an appropriate use of energy on this. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Benjiboi: ARS simply closing the issue is not really fair, and won't really work. The issue will continue to rise every time a notice is posted, and part of the goal here is to get closure. If this RFC is "doomed to failure", then let it fail on its own merits in front of an independent group of Wikipedians. But there's a reasonable basis to treat ARS as something other than "just another Wikiproject", especially in light of its scope as it is defined on the main page, and the recent recruiting tactics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
- Well continually harassing any Wikiproject is also unfair. You can drop the recruiting accusation as that was a single independent editor and steps were taken to ensure a neutral invite template representing the group was created. ARS has been extremely patient with a small group of editors disrupting and making pointy comments and imposing their view on what this project should or should not do. If any of this had been handled civilly and neutrally we would only be discussing constructive solutions. Instead a rather pointy RfC in various incarnations has been posited - each one missing the entire core concern and suggesting that ARS as a group is responsible for a few members actions and therefore we all must pay dearly by entertaining this charade of accusations. Non-neutral posts have always been and always will be posted by folks innocently or not to various Wikiprojects. We should handle them civilly per policy. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Start handling them at all, and you would have a point. I have not disrupted the project, I have not made pointy comments, and I have not imposed my view: I have raised my views and objections here, out in the open, for everyone to see and discuss. You have asked to take canvassing concerns up with the users involved on their talk page, not here. Even though I considered that a bad idea, I treid it out, only to be lambasted here as an uncivil editor for it. I have tried to discuss things civilly and neutrally, but you have not responded in kind, ignoring the problems and accusing me repeatedly of creating drama. If no members of the ARS (or at least those active on this talk page) act against misuse of the project, then that brings the project into disrepute, despite their good work in saving articles. If on the other hand those people who do point out these problems get vilified (both those doing this regularly, and people who come along once, give their opinion, and get nearly booed away), then the impression of the ARS as a closed community of like-minded editors with a larger agenda than what is displayed on the project page gets only stronger. But could you explain how we all "must pay dearly"? No one is obliged to post here, to spend their time here, or to react to all this. I do it of my own free will, and I hope it's the same for you. Your point is made clear, and continuing discussion is interesting, but not necessary to get it across, so if you feel so badly about it, just do something else. Fram (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have although some is being done offline as this talkpage has been turned, ironicly, into a battleground. To address a user on canvassing issues it needs to be done civilly. If you were wearing your admin hat at the tie perhas you could ask at AN for someone else to intervene and post something if they shared your concern. As it was i recall your efforts as rather incivil therefore relatively unheard. No one seem to share the abuse of ARS concerns, in my experience editors simply focus on rescuing tagged items if they can. I've felt obligated to address the stated and underlying concerns as patience has allowed, if you feel I was incivil or unhelpful I apologize. Efforts to deal with moving forward are rather blunted when our talkpage is circularly filled with pointy threads "concerned" with how bad ARS is in some ways. Many projects have been back-burnered until this recent mess dies down and too can be archived. Meanwhile the work continues elsewhere. If the arguing continues on this page I'll look to admin support to see if my disruption concerns are generally valid because I've never seen such acrimony (I may be lucky is all) on Wikiprojecs as such. We've been very patient but this really isn't going anywhere. efforts to address the issues from February really aren't going to go forward until the fighting on this page stops and I really don't see the ARS regulars as being the source of derision. FWIW, even if this thread is archived in minutes from now to me the core concerns are still valid and need to be addressed. Do I want to do that with those who have been continually arguing here - not really, but they will be done regardless. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Start handling them at all, and you would have a point. I have not disrupted the project, I have not made pointy comments, and I have not imposed my view: I have raised my views and objections here, out in the open, for everyone to see and discuss. You have asked to take canvassing concerns up with the users involved on their talk page, not here. Even though I considered that a bad idea, I treid it out, only to be lambasted here as an uncivil editor for it. I have tried to discuss things civilly and neutrally, but you have not responded in kind, ignoring the problems and accusing me repeatedly of creating drama. If no members of the ARS (or at least those active on this talk page) act against misuse of the project, then that brings the project into disrepute, despite their good work in saving articles. If on the other hand those people who do point out these problems get vilified (both those doing this regularly, and people who come along once, give their opinion, and get nearly booed away), then the impression of the ARS as a closed community of like-minded editors with a larger agenda than what is displayed on the project page gets only stronger. But could you explain how we all "must pay dearly"? No one is obliged to post here, to spend their time here, or to react to all this. I do it of my own free will, and I hope it's the same for you. Your point is made clear, and continuing discussion is interesting, but not necessary to get it across, so if you feel so badly about it, just do something else. Fram (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well continually harassing any Wikiproject is also unfair. You can drop the recruiting accusation as that was a single independent editor and steps were taken to ensure a neutral invite template representing the group was created. ARS has been extremely patient with a small group of editors disrupting and making pointy comments and imposing their view on what this project should or should not do. If any of this had been handled civilly and neutrally we would only be discussing constructive solutions. Instead a rather pointy RfC in various incarnations has been posited - each one missing the entire core concern and suggesting that ARS as a group is responsible for a few members actions and therefore we all must pay dearly by entertaining this charade of accusations. Non-neutral posts have always been and always will be posted by folks innocently or not to various Wikiprojects. We should handle them civilly per policy. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Benjiboi: ARS simply closing the issue is not really fair, and won't really work. The issue will continue to rise every time a notice is posted, and part of the goal here is to get closure. If this RFC is "doomed to failure", then let it fail on its own merits in front of an independent group of Wikipedians. But there's a reasonable basis to treat ARS as something other than "just another Wikiproject", especially in light of its scope as it is defined on the main page, and the recent recruiting tactics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
- Comment: I appreciate Fritzpoll trying to treat both sides fairly and manage this. The only thing I'd add is give us a couple of days to get closure on issue 1, because I'm not sure it was really re-opened for any good reason. Also, I'd add that we really don't need to hear from AMiB and the other people who participated in the AN/Is against ikip, and we don't really need to hear from ARS either. We know how they feel. Let's see how this looks to neutral outside observers. The last thing I'd want is to watch the ARS turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- God lord Randomran, you are not neutral this, you never have been. Stop saying you are. Everytime I explain why you are not neutral you accuse me of bad faith. Do we need this drama reapeated here again? Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I must agree a bit with Ikip here. ARS detractors have turned this talkpage into the very toxic battleground that is repeatedly suggested as a concern. Is it any wonder that those of us who have invested energy into improving the work we do are quite over the limit of tolerance on this? Really, if you want to help rescue content please do that, if you don't then maybe one of the hundreds of other WP:Wikiprojects will suit your interestes better. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as well as if anything, it is time to continue rescuing articles! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unneccessary RFC, one which acts to bring editors to a battleground where none need exist. Disruption of the project is to be avoided. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment for what it's worth, the RFC shouldn't involve any of us here. So we can already get back to editing articles while a group of independent, unaffiliated editors deal with it. When the RFC finishes, so will the drama. There's something to be said for getting someone neutral to sign off on whether or not there's a problem. There is no value to preventing a good faith discussion from taking place. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is silly that the members of a project should not be involved in the RFC of the project. Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto. That's rather laughable that a RfC wanting to sanction ARS in some way would be launched yet some ARS members would be disinvited. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the idea of sanctions is quite the laughable one. But who's suggesting sanctions? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Each of those proposals, in essence, would be limiting or sanctioning this Wikiproject in some way from being notified or allowed to be involved in XfD or discussion on policies. IMHO, each one is a proposed sanction that would violate how Wikiprojects are treated by community standards. If your goal is to stop all Wikiprojects from such activities then this is certainly the wrong venue. If yo're trying to stpop just this one then the RfC is malformed as singling out one of many for special treatment, all, at its core, for user conduct not anything the project did or does. -- Banjeboi 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- There's been a lot of talk about what this project should be and what it should be used for. But you can't "sanction" a project-space page. You can sanction editors, but project-space pages are just tools. Deciding how a tool should be used and what it should be used for is a common policy RFC issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that almost every policy RFC is about that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- We may have to agree to disagree a bit here. Theoretical discussions, especially contentious ones, don't seem to be adding to helping this project. They seem to be doing the opposite. We all know very well your take on things as you have repeated them continuously. Great patience has been shown to try to reason with you. If your not having much constructive effect here it might be best for all concerned if you disengage and focus on areas on Wikipedia on which you do approve. -- Banjeboi 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes yes. "If you're unhappy with this project for any reason say your piece and go away." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- We may have to agree to disagree a bit here. Theoretical discussions, especially contentious ones, don't seem to be adding to helping this project. They seem to be doing the opposite. We all know very well your take on things as you have repeated them continuously. Great patience has been shown to try to reason with you. If your not having much constructive effect here it might be best for all concerned if you disengage and focus on areas on Wikipedia on which you do approve. -- Banjeboi 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- There's been a lot of talk about what this project should be and what it should be used for. But you can't "sanction" a project-space page. You can sanction editors, but project-space pages are just tools. Deciding how a tool should be used and what it should be used for is a common policy RFC issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that almost every policy RFC is about that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Each of those proposals, in essence, would be limiting or sanctioning this Wikiproject in some way from being notified or allowed to be involved in XfD or discussion on policies. IMHO, each one is a proposed sanction that would violate how Wikiprojects are treated by community standards. If your goal is to stop all Wikiprojects from such activities then this is certainly the wrong venue. If yo're trying to stpop just this one then the RfC is malformed as singling out one of many for special treatment, all, at its core, for user conduct not anything the project did or does. -- Banjeboi 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the idea of sanctions is quite the laughable one. But who's suggesting sanctions? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment for what it's worth, the RFC shouldn't involve any of us here. So we can already get back to editing articles while a group of independent, unaffiliated editors deal with it. When the RFC finishes, so will the drama. There's something to be said for getting someone neutral to sign off on whether or not there's a problem. There is no value to preventing a good faith discussion from taking place. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. There are problems with the ARS (mainly with how it is used by some editors, and how most other regulars don't see a problem with these attempts, even if they aren't influenced by them) which taint their good work in rescuing content (articles, no idea if anything else has ever been rescued). The problems this project (or some of the most vocal editors of it) has with scrutiny (as evidenced by the opposition to this RfC, and the suggestions made earlier to ban a critic from this page and to remove all discussions of canvassing, without adressing the canvassing itself) is evidence of it becoming a group which excludes itself from the normal workings of the encyclopedia as a collaborative effort and tries to suppress all dissenting viewpoints. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is your POV and I believe it is at least slightly off. No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK or that ARS would have approved the recruiting that took place. And no one is suggesting that the issues can't be addressed in a civil and constructive manner. This simply isn't the way to do it. Any concerns of a few editors "taint"ing ARS' "good work" pale compared to the negative tainting of ARS accross multiple forums and the massive disruption to our work here. The only reason that ARS critic was being considered for a ban was behavior, not for criticism. Constructive efforts to address canvassing have actually been underway offline as ARS' own talkpage was turned into a battleground by a handful of critics. No one has suggested that ARS be treated any special or different from other Wikiprojects except by those very same critics who seem to think this Wikiproject should be banned in some way from XfD or policy discussions etc. That we oppose dissenting viepoints is rather laughable as well. Ikips voluminous suggestions have a reasonable success rate but we don't follow them or anyone else's POV lockstep at all. If it' a good idea and may help it is considered and quite a few proposals have positiviely impacted Wikipedia in addition to the hundreds of rescues we've been involved in. The only thing keeping us from implementing more at this point is that very same group of editors who seem determined to make a much bigger deal out of a handful(?) of rather non-neutral posts or other posts they deemed as canvassing. I'm glad we've recorded all these posts in one place so we have them for future reference. Sadly it seems fairly obvious that no matter what ARS does as a group there will be detractors anxious to find fault rather then work toward equitable solutions that remain civil and neutral. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- "No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK", but no one is taking action against it or even recognising that some posts here were pure canvassing. And no one has yet shown that they can address the problem in a civil and constructive way, all I have seen is shooting at the messenger, either for discussing it here ("drama", "bullying", "public shaming"), or for discussing it with the editor directly ("uncivil"!). I have been asked repeatedly to join another wikiproject, giving strongly the impression that I am not welcome here. Removal of canvassing posts is not allowed: discussion of canvassing posts is not allowed. All criticism is considered "drama", even when it is a perfectly normal suggestion to change the haphazard manual way of archiving to an automated one, which met with the approval of most people. When other wikiprojects are canvassed to join a policy discussion, that gets serious disapproval as well. When wikiprojects are asked to join a policy discussion that is outside the scope of the project, things get even worse.
- (sigh) Again, just because ARS members didn't break out buckets of boiling oil and whacking sticks to punish poor editing decisions doesn't mean some grand green light was lit. I would say that it was better to ignore the posts or respond to the core issue than to edit war and blow any of them way beyond porportion. And actually only those pushing for ARS-wide scope and sanction RfC's are demonstarting they are unable to address the issues civilly. Just because ARS members don't over-react the same way the critics do doesn't mean there isn't concern but we have looked to making constructive efforts while those opposed to ARS have worked to make this talkpage a battleground. You seem to ignore efforts to make constructive changes and only want to belabour an issue that really doesn't seem to be an ARS issue at all. it may be a user issue. And the rather hostile re-actions have been a civility issue but those too have dissipated. And now we're rehashing other stale issues seemingly without any need. The archiving again? I've agreed to let thread stale for a week even if they seem dead, that was your timing for an autobot. Please don't pretend that ARS has to change to meet your needs to see pages of pointy circular discussions when it is only serving to disrupt this project. We added a search mechanism for your claim you somehow couldn't find something. Up until this page being turned into a battleground items were archived chronologically roughly by stale date. We didn't need any other method. If your intent is to continue to argue and disparage seemingly everything we do or don't do perhaps finding or creating another wikiproject would be in everyone's best interest. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- "No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK", but no one is taking action against it or even recognising that some posts here were pure canvassing. And no one has yet shown that they can address the problem in a civil and constructive way, all I have seen is shooting at the messenger, either for discussing it here ("drama", "bullying", "public shaming"), or for discussing it with the editor directly ("uncivil"!). I have been asked repeatedly to join another wikiproject, giving strongly the impression that I am not welcome here. Removal of canvassing posts is not allowed: discussion of canvassing posts is not allowed. All criticism is considered "drama", even when it is a perfectly normal suggestion to change the haphazard manual way of archiving to an automated one, which met with the approval of most people. When other wikiprojects are canvassed to join a policy discussion, that gets serious disapproval as well. When wikiprojects are asked to join a policy discussion that is outside the scope of the project, things get even worse.
- That is your POV and I believe it is at least slightly off. No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK or that ARS would have approved the recruiting that took place. And no one is suggesting that the issues can't be addressed in a civil and constructive manner. This simply isn't the way to do it. Any concerns of a few editors "taint"ing ARS' "good work" pale compared to the negative tainting of ARS accross multiple forums and the massive disruption to our work here. The only reason that ARS critic was being considered for a ban was behavior, not for criticism. Constructive efforts to address canvassing have actually been underway offline as ARS' own talkpage was turned into a battleground by a handful of critics. No one has suggested that ARS be treated any special or different from other Wikiprojects except by those very same critics who seem to think this Wikiproject should be banned in some way from XfD or policy discussions etc. That we oppose dissenting viepoints is rather laughable as well. Ikips voluminous suggestions have a reasonable success rate but we don't follow them or anyone else's POV lockstep at all. If it' a good idea and may help it is considered and quite a few proposals have positiviely impacted Wikipedia in addition to the hundreds of rescues we've been involved in. The only thing keeping us from implementing more at this point is that very same group of editors who seem determined to make a much bigger deal out of a handful(?) of rather non-neutral posts or other posts they deemed as canvassing. I'm glad we've recorded all these posts in one place so we have them for future reference. Sadly it seems fairly obvious that no matter what ARS does as a group there will be detractors anxious to find fault rather then work toward equitable solutions that remain civil and neutral. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, if you and the others had adressed the canvassing posts when they occurred, all this could have been avoided. But you are still blaming the messenger instead of tackling the underlying issue. You didn't need to defend all canvassers with the most spurious of arguments (e.g. labelling them incorrectly as newbies, when they were well established experienced editors who started editing in 2005 or 2006), you could have just as easily continued rescuing articles. No one is stopping you from doing that but yourself. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that had edit-warring not ensued that we wouldn't have addressed the concerns. If someone posts "Please help protect this policy from being deleted" or whatever, the correct response is to civilly work with that editor to either refactor or possibly hat the note so that instead a neutral message is conveyed; and work to help them see that future messages should be neutral as well. Those criticizing ARS, are blaming this group for having posts appear on our talkpage while simultaneously edit-warring and behaving reprehensibly toward all concerned. These proposals all miss the mark. This issue has never been about scope as that hasn't changed and is being used as a red herring, IMHO, it's only been about non-neutral notifications. And, no, it matters not whether it's a newby or experienced editor, our civility policies don't encurage less civil behaviours for certain users. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You may not be convinced, but in most cases, people here did not even recognise that there were problems with the canvassing posts. It takes two to edit-war, by the way, so don't blame that on the critics alone. As for "behaving reprehensibly", I don't feel that I have acted in such a way. And the matter is also about scope, as evidenced by the discussion I had with Ikip on this pages before this current RFC: talk page posts here are appropriate when they are neutral and in scope: a neutral message about e.g. a policy change is still an attempt to skew process by contacting a selected group of editors. It does not matter if such posts actually have that result or not, the posting in itself is wrong (misguided or deliberate), and that should be adressed. Examples of edits from this year by some of the most active members of the project: a post like "This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission." is an attempt to get like-minded editors to join a policy discussion, not to save any articles. Never mind an edit like "I agree with Dream Focus and A Nobody. I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This is not about saving articles which could meet our guidelines and policies with some work, but about rallying editors to change the guidelines and policies so that articles which are now delete-worthy can be kept anyway. Fram (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually neutral policy posts are fine for any Wikiproject and each project themselves should decide if the post merits any involvement. I've learned that I certainly don't know everything so seeing how a policy change may effect a Wikiproject really should be left for that project to decide. The only additional comment to your statement is the perceived issue if an article is incorrectly kept, sorry but just like if an article is incorrectly deleted this can and likely will be addressed. Wikipedians are people and people make mistakes, mistakes can be corrected but volunteers need to be treated politely as we want to encourage each other to make improvements and keep volunteering. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You may not be convinced, but in most cases, people here did not even recognise that there were problems with the canvassing posts. It takes two to edit-war, by the way, so don't blame that on the critics alone. As for "behaving reprehensibly", I don't feel that I have acted in such a way. And the matter is also about scope, as evidenced by the discussion I had with Ikip on this pages before this current RFC: talk page posts here are appropriate when they are neutral and in scope: a neutral message about e.g. a policy change is still an attempt to skew process by contacting a selected group of editors. It does not matter if such posts actually have that result or not, the posting in itself is wrong (misguided or deliberate), and that should be adressed. Examples of edits from this year by some of the most active members of the project: a post like "This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission." is an attempt to get like-minded editors to join a policy discussion, not to save any articles. Never mind an edit like "I agree with Dream Focus and A Nobody. I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This is not about saving articles which could meet our guidelines and policies with some work, but about rallying editors to change the guidelines and policies so that articles which are now delete-worthy can be kept anyway. Fram (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that had edit-warring not ensued that we wouldn't have addressed the concerns. If someone posts "Please help protect this policy from being deleted" or whatever, the correct response is to civilly work with that editor to either refactor or possibly hat the note so that instead a neutral message is conveyed; and work to help them see that future messages should be neutral as well. Those criticizing ARS, are blaming this group for having posts appear on our talkpage while simultaneously edit-warring and behaving reprehensibly toward all concerned. These proposals all miss the mark. This issue has never been about scope as that hasn't changed and is being used as a red herring, IMHO, it's only been about non-neutral notifications. And, no, it matters not whether it's a newby or experienced editor, our civility policies don't encurage less civil behaviours for certain users. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, if you and the others had adressed the canvassing posts when they occurred, all this could have been avoided. But you are still blaming the messenger instead of tackling the underlying issue. You didn't need to defend all canvassers with the most spurious of arguments (e.g. labelling them incorrectly as newbies, when they were well established experienced editors who started editing in 2005 or 2006), you could have just as easily continued rescuing articles. No one is stopping you from doing that but yourself. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- STRONG OPPOSE the issues above have gotten less and less urgent as the days have goes on. Ikip (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment re: independent feedback You are involved. Both sides are. Both sides are writing the arguments. Everyone who is discussing this right now knows how everyone feels, and there is no value to hearing anything beyond what is contained in the RFC arguments above. Moreover, this RFC isn't going to lead to a sanction. It's going to get an independent opinion, which is what this discussion has sorely been lacking. You may not even respect that independent opinion, but at least it will give us some sense of the next step. I'm not sure why people are so afraid of a neutral process. There is literally no value to repeating the same lengthy back-and-forth in front of a frustrated and confused audience. We need a third-opinion, and at this point I hardly care what that third-opinion is so long as it can provide some closure to this issue, and give both sides a sense that they were heard. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a neutral process and it is only serving to further smear ARS as a "source of concern" and disrupt our work. Neutral opinions are well established that (i) Wikiprojects are certainly allowed to have neutral notifications of XfD and policy et al discussions, (ii) that canvassing is discouraged, (iii) that ARS never canvassed, recruited, enabled canvassing or encourages vote-staking, etc. In fact, evidence contradicts all those assertions. (iv) That civility issues are policy and trump guidelines, even if you believe someone is violating a guideline our policies mandate you act civilly to resolve the issues. That seems to have been missing here. (v) A strong record of ARS working to ensure neutrality in all our project space neither condeming or condoning inclusionism/deletionism and instead focussing on the clean-up work. (vi) No credible evidence of ARS violating any policies has been shown, ever. The likely result of any RfC is that ARS will grow in membership and effectiveness. It's happenned everytime someone has tried to delete the project or our template. I see this RfC attempt as more of the same and realistically this is how I would expect the RfC to go. Accusations galore refuted by factual evidence. Acknowledgement that all Wikiprojects should have the same standards of conduct; they aren't responsible for independent actions of members and all are responsible for their own edits. Some - rather minor - alleged canvassing incidents were blown waaay out of porportiom and, as always, ARS members sought constructive and neutral solutions to move forward regardless of the various agendas at play. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral opinions haven't said that ARS is merely another Wikiproject, that it's scope is about discussion rather than article improvement, or that the recent recruitment drive hasn't made ARS systemically more inclusionist. And this isn't about blame, this is about preventing polarized discussions. Even if you disagree, you have to concede that this disagreement is in good faith for us to be able to move forward. The only way the disagreement will be resolved is if an independent group of editors look at it. If it just descends into another battleground between ARS and its critics, no neutral perspective will be found, and we'll have to make further efforts at dispute resolution. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're correct but the fact remains we are a maintenance Wikiproject within the constructs of community standards working in a stressful area of Wikipedia. ARS is about rescuing content that is encyclopedic often by adding sourcing but sometimes just pointing out issues that may have been overlooked. It's not our job to fix everything but sometimes we do tremendous work in the regard. No one but a handfull of detractors is suggesting that ARS has leaned towards inclusionism and in fact ARS as a group has opposed efforts towards either inclusionism or deletionism. It's unhelpful and divisive, we just don't do it. Disagree completely with your assessment with how to resolve our critics' concerns. From my experience almost nothing but disbanding ARS will appease some of those concerns. The constructive criticism we try to absorb and act accordingly. -- Banjeboi 23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral opinions haven't said that ARS is merely another Wikiproject, that it's scope is about discussion rather than article improvement, or that the recent recruitment drive hasn't made ARS systemically more inclusionist. And this isn't about blame, this is about preventing polarized discussions. Even if you disagree, you have to concede that this disagreement is in good faith for us to be able to move forward. The only way the disagreement will be resolved is if an independent group of editors look at it. If it just descends into another battleground between ARS and its critics, no neutral perspective will be found, and we'll have to make further efforts at dispute resolution. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a neutral process and it is only serving to further smear ARS as a "source of concern" and disrupt our work. Neutral opinions are well established that (i) Wikiprojects are certainly allowed to have neutral notifications of XfD and policy et al discussions, (ii) that canvassing is discouraged, (iii) that ARS never canvassed, recruited, enabled canvassing or encourages vote-staking, etc. In fact, evidence contradicts all those assertions. (iv) That civility issues are policy and trump guidelines, even if you believe someone is violating a guideline our policies mandate you act civilly to resolve the issues. That seems to have been missing here. (v) A strong record of ARS working to ensure neutrality in all our project space neither condeming or condoning inclusionism/deletionism and instead focussing on the clean-up work. (vi) No credible evidence of ARS violating any policies has been shown, ever. The likely result of any RfC is that ARS will grow in membership and effectiveness. It's happenned everytime someone has tried to delete the project or our template. I see this RfC attempt as more of the same and realistically this is how I would expect the RfC to go. Accusations galore refuted by factual evidence. Acknowledgement that all Wikiprojects should have the same standards of conduct; they aren't responsible for independent actions of members and all are responsible for their own edits. Some - rather minor - alleged canvassing incidents were blown waaay out of porportiom and, as always, ARS members sought constructive and neutral solutions to move forward regardless of the various agendas at play. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Random section break
- What are the plans for presentation of evidence? Will it be limited to diffs in the argument statements? I realize that pointing out specific discussions as possibly influenced is likely to go over poorly. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- If an RfC happens it will likely not need any diffs as much as a concerted effort to find neutral and constructive solutions. Dredging up past "examples" becomes pointy in and of itself. We already have policies and guidelines galore to help guide any discussions, no need to reinvent them. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that zero diffs will be needed: without any evidence, everything would be bald assertions of opinion. Even obviously false statements could not be refuted. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs are generally used to show how editor X behaved poorly. In theory we would demonstrating that sanctioning ARS in some way is needed to prevent harm to Wikipedia. Every past claim of harm has been considered and dimissed for lack of actual harm, likely because ARS members - like most Wikiprojects - act independently and are still subject to all other conduct policies. Ergo block voting, canvassing, empty vote etc etc concerns are addressed n a user level as should this entire thread. It's not a project level issue although we are doing reasonable and neutral preventative and proactive measures to address the stated and implied concerns. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs identify specific edits. A diff could show how editor X behaved correctly. I use diffs to provide context often and in all talk namespaces, so I disagree with your objection to them. Flatscan (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs can certainly be used constructively. In this case they wer rather pointy and unneeded. No one was questioning if an editor had done what was being stated, but the RfC concerned the Wikiproject so stronger diffs would show any organized effort to violate community protocols. If any if those exit they would be worth reviewing for substance. This is, after all, talking about doing, not an actual RfC or ANI report. Hopefully the most egregious behavioural issues are behind us and efforts to prevent further problems will prove effective. -- Banjeboi 10:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs identify specific edits. A diff could show how editor X behaved correctly. I use diffs to provide context often and in all talk namespaces, so I disagree with your objection to them. Flatscan (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs are generally used to show how editor X behaved poorly. In theory we would demonstrating that sanctioning ARS in some way is needed to prevent harm to Wikipedia. Every past claim of harm has been considered and dimissed for lack of actual harm, likely because ARS members - like most Wikiprojects - act independently and are still subject to all other conduct policies. Ergo block voting, canvassing, empty vote etc etc concerns are addressed n a user level as should this entire thread. It's not a project level issue although we are doing reasonable and neutral preventative and proactive measures to address the stated and implied concerns. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that zero diffs will be needed: without any evidence, everything would be bald assertions of opinion. Even obviously false statements could not be refuted. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- If an RfC happens it will likely not need any diffs as much as a concerted effort to find neutral and constructive solutions. Dredging up past "examples" becomes pointy in and of itself. We already have policies and guidelines galore to help guide any discussions, no need to reinvent them. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason specifically to restrict anyone from commenting - after all, the summaries require some evidence or statements from both sides. This is also not about sanctioning ARS - I don't know where that impression comes from. It is about asking a question on which individuals here are not agreed, and getting some outside feedback. I don't see any of the proposals as being sanctions - and an RfC cannot make sanctions on any individual or group anyway: it acts in a purely advisory capacity. As to the issue of urgency, I don't really see the issues dying away in the medium term. The best remedies are those that prevent conflict, rather than waiting for a situation to develop again. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The only "situation" is a non-neutral posting, so as long as there are not over-reactions again there really shouldn't be any recurrance. These RfCs are all about sanctioning ARS or singling us out among all other Wikiprojects as not being able to participate in XfD and policiy discussions et al. That's really all these are about and why they are fundamentally flawed and doomed to waste even more community energy. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, given that I wrote them, I can only object that you are interpreting my intentions as negative with no basis for doing so. These are simply questions of scope - the fact that there are people here disagreeing (I have little opinion on the topic) suggests that it is best to settle the issues of scope. I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but you misunderstand the purpose of a Request for Comment in this context. Whilst an RfC on a User almost always is an effort to seek sanction (although neer able to, since RfC doesn't have that purpose) an RfC in this context is literally that. I am confused - if the point is so obvious, then why worry about people dropping in to agree with you? Talking about a "waste of time" is unhelpful, since there are obviously people who don't feel this is a waste. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- An RfC is malformed if it's inherently against community consensus. If an RfC was started - shall Rugby Wikiproject be allowed to ignore notability guidelines and have independent threshold?' - it would be laughed away as ridiculous. Likewise any RfC suggesting that any Wikiproject be topic-banned from XfD, policy or other discussions is also preposterous. If you honestly feel Wikiprojects can't be notified of policies then do as has been suggested and seek support from the Wikiproject Council. i think you'll find vast similarities to what I'm suggesting - it won't happen, ergo more waste of community energy. This also completely is a red herringto the actual concerns that were non-neutral notifications, again, a user concern and Wikiprojects are not to be held responsible for members acting independently. Likewise those that edit-warred against them? we don't punish all detractors but try to resolve the issues and behaviours. RfC is unneeded for that. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, given that I wrote them, I can only object that you are interpreting my intentions as negative with no basis for doing so. These are simply questions of scope - the fact that there are people here disagreeing (I have little opinion on the topic) suggests that it is best to settle the issues of scope. I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but you misunderstand the purpose of a Request for Comment in this context. Whilst an RfC on a User almost always is an effort to seek sanction (although neer able to, since RfC doesn't have that purpose) an RfC in this context is literally that. I am confused - if the point is so obvious, then why worry about people dropping in to agree with you? Talking about a "waste of time" is unhelpful, since there are obviously people who don't feel this is a waste. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The only "situation" is a non-neutral posting, so as long as there are not over-reactions again there really shouldn't be any recurrance. These RfCs are all about sanctioning ARS or singling us out among all other Wikiprojects as not being able to participate in XfD and policiy discussions et al. That's really all these are about and why they are fundamentally flawed and doomed to waste even more community energy. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support — This page has rolled-along far enough that the issue needs sorting at a higher level. Personally, I think this project is a solution in search of a problem. Sure, some folks here have improved articles, which is appreciated, but the coupling with AfD is inappropriate; it inherently has a confounding effect on those discussions. Editors intent on improving articles don't need an AfD or a {{rescue}} tag as motivation; just go improve something. There are, of course, other issues with the project and some involved with it. Jack Merridew 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron 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. Some chose to only comment but in some way limiting those who are working to improve the article to meet stated concerns from !voting flies in the face of concensus. All are welcome to particpate. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article you put up for deletion is improved through this process by addressing your concerns and thus kept, you haven't lost. Rather, the encyclopedia has won. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it says somewhere that the goal is clean-up of notable content that's at AfD; something like that, at least. And I have no doubt that this is your goal. But your project has been hijacked by those who seek to indiscriminately keep content. I also believe this project is inherently seeking to set itself up as an obstacle to deletion; the problem with that is that while we do have a deletion policy, we don't have a rescue policy, which offers a WP:CREEP argument concerning this project. The legitimate goal of improving notable content can be achieved independent of the deletion process and should, across the board, occur prior to that last minute. Article issues are apparent from a reading of an article with a critical eye; the only things to be gleaned from an AfD discussion are individual interpretations of those issues by specific editors. This is merely a wikiproject, which are open to all, and as such has dificulty with members' disparate views of the project's and the 'pedia's goals. The issues here are not being resolved here, or at AN/I, and the proposal to seek the input of a wider group of people not previously involved in this is appropriate. Jack Merridew 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is your POV and evidence actually counters that assertion. No hijacking has occurred despite the bad faith assumptions that it has. ARS was created to help address that AfD is abused and we have been effective at helping to rescue content if it actually wasn't a good candidate for AfD. Until AfD becomes much more rigorous at enforcing it's own instructions there will likely always be a need for ARS. Indeed people can do rescue work without our involvement and no one has suggested they can't; we are here to organize and assist those who are trying to clean up content and address noted deficiencies - policies on deletion and determining notability, etc are a natural extension of what we do. We are on the front lines dealing with many borderline cases. There is zero reasons the members here should be disinvited to discussing policies and decisions that impact the work we do. ARS members hold a wide variety of views and thoughtful discussion is welcome; disruption, edit-warring and incivility is not - those remain at the core of this thread. As stated above those who disagree with ARS may never be satisfied until they remove the project. If that is your goal you can expect opposition. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it says somewhere that the goal is clean-up of notable content that's at AfD; something like that, at least. And I have no doubt that this is your goal. But your project has been hijacked by those who seek to indiscriminately keep content. I also believe this project is inherently seeking to set itself up as an obstacle to deletion; the problem with that is that while we do have a deletion policy, we don't have a rescue policy, which offers a WP:CREEP argument concerning this project. The legitimate goal of improving notable content can be achieved independent of the deletion process and should, across the board, occur prior to that last minute. Article issues are apparent from a reading of an article with a critical eye; the only things to be gleaned from an AfD discussion are individual interpretations of those issues by specific editors. This is merely a wikiproject, which are open to all, and as such has dificulty with members' disparate views of the project's and the 'pedia's goals. The issues here are not being resolved here, or at AN/I, and the proposal to seek the input of a wider group of people not previously involved in this is appropriate. Jack Merridew 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron 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. Some chose to only comment but in some way limiting those who are working to improve the article to meet stated concerns from !voting flies in the face of concensus. All are welcome to particpate. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article you put up for deletion is improved through this process by addressing your concerns and thus kept, you haven't lost. Rather, the encyclopedia has won. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TLDR. Aren't there enough of these rambling talking shops already? Just about every page connected with deletion or fiction seems to attract the usual suspects to go on and on at inordinate length but little useful purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- How do any of those things apply here? WP:CREEP is about not intoducing unnecessary rules, which this isn't - it's a feedback process. WP:NOTFORUM is an aspect of OR - how is this original research? And WP:TLDR isn't a reason not to discuss issues. If the ARS members don't want to conduct an RfC, and want to isolate themselves from the community's opinion, they should let us know. I am only here to try to help, and am baffled at the turnaround of views on the holding of an RfC from only a couple of days ago. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- " If the ARS members don't want to conduct an RfC, and want to isolate themselves from the community's opinion, they should let us know" that is a little unfair. Just because some members don't want to conduct a RFC does not necesarily mean we want to isolate ourselves from the community opinion.
- WP:CREEP applies because it would be applying more rules on a wikiproject, were none existed before. The other acronyms I am unfamilar with. Ikip (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then let's get the community's opinion. The community can't sanction anyone where no bad conduct is alleged. They'd be providing a neutral and independent opinion on a practice, and we'd decide how to deal with that practice based on that opinion, but it wouldn't mean anyone would get in trouble. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- We already have the community opinion accross multiple XfDs and at AN, ANI and a very recent RfC about TfDs. This is simply prolonging arguments that are more caged as IDON'TLIKEIT on a project level. I'll add WP:Snow as being relative here as well. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then let's get the community's opinion. The community can't sanction anyone where no bad conduct is alleged. They'd be providing a neutral and independent opinion on a practice, and we'd decide how to deal with that practice based on that opinion, but it wouldn't mean anyone would get in trouble. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- WP:CREEP is applicable in that the RfC seems intended to concern itself with developing rules of behaviour for this project. We don't need such rules - we have too many rules already and making rules is not our business per WP:NOTLAW which is policy. This brings us to WP:NOTFORUM which clearly states that we should "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." The proposed RfC is not about creating the encyclopaedia - it's about developing rules. So that's two policies we'd be breaking. As for WP:TLDR, other ways of putting it are "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" and "don't get me started!". We should not suppose that the RfC would be one-way traffic or a brief exchange of pleasantries. It would, of course, be an interminable back-and-forth which would do nothing to improve our tempers or, more importantly, the encyclopaedia. To summarise, thanks but no thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- We already have an interminable back-and-forth. If one side -- any side -- tries to unilaterally decide what's appropriate, then this will continue to be an interminable back-and-forth. Getting an independent set of editors to look at the situation and sign off on it would at least give us a third-opinion, and maybe allow us to settle this once and for all. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- As stated above, that's already happened. ARS is still here and those who don't like it may never be won over. That's no reason to be disruptive and that's the concern now. We have been under attack for three months and it's unfair to this project and will be the source of a new admin concern if it continues. Personally I have better things to do then start threads there. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Motion to close and archive entire thread
Now clocking in at 191 kilobytes - roughly two thirds of the entire page - ARS critics have demonstrated that no RfC is needed because indeed piles of discussion has taken place that only affirms that ARS has been accused of canvassing and recruiting inclusionists with evidence showing that ARS has done neither and has, in fact, worked to address each concern in turn. The recruitement issue was with a single editor acting independently - they were cleared of accusations at admin boards and in response ARS created a neutral invite template.
The canvassing issues remain centered on some non-neutral notifications placed on the projects talkpage which were then deleted and re-added instead of following civility protocals. This was unfortunate but as a direct result a recently closed RfC affirmed ARS certainly could be involved at TfD and likely other XfD discussions. This thread has centered on can Wikiprojects be notified of XfD and policy discussions with the answer being "yes, they should be neutral though". Various folks have posited ARS create a special process or policing force to ensure no non-neutral posts are placed here. This is counter to existing policies on civility and canvassing. Instead we work with any of those editors, assuming they mean well, to refactor or otherwise neutralizing their notice to mitigate POV if we actually think it's that big of deal. In any case there is no reason to be disagreeable even when there is differing opinions. ARS has consistently shown creativity and adaptibility to address concerns and many of our ideas have helped improve Wikipedia in additon to actually rescuing articles. ARS still remains neutral and still welcomes self-identified deletionists and inclusionists committed to improving the encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Perhaps well intended but another ARS RfC is unhelpful and these are user issues that every Wikiproject must address. -- Banjeboi 23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support with a really special thanks to Fritzpoll for his efforts to be a neutral mediator. Ikip (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support closure of a process that has distracted so many editors from both "sides" of the discussion away from efforts to improve the project. We all have so many better things to do here . Really. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NOTFORUM. This activity is too remote from our task of improving the encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support per above FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but Banj, your position is "This is a maintenance Wikiproject that is completely capable of policing itself in the unlikely case that that is necessary, and capable of defining its own scope. The concerns that recruiting for this project has been aimed specifically are inclusionists are silly given the unilateral and ineffectual nature of that campaigning, and the few outright attempts to recruit favorable editors on this talk page have been ineffectual and politely rebuffed by project members." Every single person in this discussion is aware that this is your position. Please either carefully consider whether your lengthy replies and motions to close add any new insight to anyone who is already familiar with your position and refrain from commenting when no such insight exists, or stop complaining about the length of this talk page. Sheesh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried to address the many oft repeated accusations and innacuracies as thoughtfully as possible - practicing what I preach as it were. If my comments are lengthy it's to try to wind down irrelevant material that is perpetuating the issues rather than actually addressing solutions. And no I don't agree with your assessment and I think you're aware of that. I also think that if you really want to discuss this please visit my talkpage so we can keep our theoretical discussions and disagreements off a Wikiproject page unless we find some solution that may actually benefit the work here. That same invite extends to any editor. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- You've also opened individual sections to move to close each section, as well as a separate section to move to close the whole proposed RFC before it is even presented to anyone else. I would suspect that at least a tenth of the text in this section is signed Banjeboi, and that is a conservative estimate. Either say your point briefly and trust that people will see it, or don't complain about the length. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The individual sections were nommed seperately as I hoped to help focus on any that were actually promising. None seemed to be unfortunately. That's not to say that the points were invalid. Just as I opposed opening an RfC on your behaviours here I don't see any of these as project issues as much as individual editors' behavioural issues; as such they need to be addressed on that level appropriately. Our entire page is 336k overall, this thread in now 216k which is about two thirds and this shows little promise of appeasing ARS critics' concerns, some which may never be appeased, and other efforts to address the stated concerns have already been enacted and others in process. This is very much the same trajectory ARS has always taken; absorb the criticism and try to resolve constructive criticism appropriately. This is what one would hope would happen. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- You've also opened individual sections to move to close each section, as well as a separate section to move to close the whole proposed RFC before it is even presented to anyone else. I would suspect that at least a tenth of the text in this section is signed Banjeboi, and that is a conservative estimate. Either say your point briefly and trust that people will see it, or don't complain about the length. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried to address the many oft repeated accusations and innacuracies as thoughtfully as possible - practicing what I preach as it were. If my comments are lengthy it's to try to wind down irrelevant material that is perpetuating the issues rather than actually addressing solutions. And no I don't agree with your assessment and I think you're aware of that. I also think that if you really want to discuss this please visit my talkpage so we can keep our theoretical discussions and disagreements off a Wikiproject page unless we find some solution that may actually benefit the work here. That same invite extends to any editor. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support as we really need to return focus on rescuing articles. I can think of plenty of articles that need rescue and I sure would appreciate the help. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is saddening to me that I am now viewed as a critic despite the support for these issues only a few days ago, and that the simple asking of questions is considered criticism. I am afraid that, ultimately, an RfC will be held on these matters and more since this is essentially a closedown by what is perceived to be one side of these debates that will satisfy noone i the long term - but ARS will be less in control of its content and direction if one is opened externally. Nonetheless, I wish those members now supporting closure of this had mentioned this opinion earlier and saved us all this time. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Huh?? Your intervention was most appreciated Fritzpoll, per Ikips comment above. And at the time an RFS looked a good idea, at least to me. Its just several of us now feel that the 1 or 2 who needed the original criticism have taken it on board. One of those two being me -I hadnt openly pushed for it but privately I was hoping that ARS might one day have an input into making Policy , as until policy becomes more inclusion friendly many good articles are inevitably going to be lost . But its now very clear to me I was misguided on that one. Both ARS veterans and respected inclusion minded editors like Uncle G clearly feel ARS should stick closely to its remit and not do anything else that risks creating conflict with other sections of the community. And I dont see there being a single person thats not accepting that now its been spelled out. If there was an RFC what current issue is there for it to address? I dont see a single tangible issue we haven't conceded on. Bilateral Relations was until recently an area of conflict, but Ikip's gone to great lengths to alleviate concerns on that, and according to one person who wanted to heavily reduce the number of BR articles IKIPs solution is exactly what he wanted. What more do folk want? An abject apology? I dont think either side should have to apologise – as far as I can tell most everyone was acting in good faith , just from different perspectives. So is there any reason why we cant draw a line under this, as a lesson learned? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- If that is really the reasoning, then there is no issue - but that's not how it reads from the motion to close and the previous comments by the proposer. If there is no issue, then there's no need, but I'd be happier if that were clear from editors on both sides of the original dispute Fritzpoll (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't fully agree with FeydHuxtable assessment. I think the RfC was just a unconstructive and possible disruptive idea as rather entrenched ideas which allude but don't address the core issues which would be innapropriate for a project RfC. The core problems were civility and behavioural ones that are handled civilly on a user level. Two of the key editors have come around a bit to see that maybe lines were crossed and it didn't help much. The RfC proposals all seemed to suggest that ARS as a group be sanctioned in various ways although the problems seemed centered not at the project level but at the user level, and isolated, generally speaking. Restricting Wikiprojects in any way from even getting neutral notices? That actually would be setting a rather troubling precedent and I don't see that doing anything but stirring up heated exchanges. Some of ARS' critics concerns will never be resolved unless the project is wiped out - that doesn't seem to be on the table here. What remains then is systematically ensuring our project remains neutral and finds way to address the concerns that are reasonable - like empty !votes - and do so benefitting all concerned. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- You see sanctions where I see requests for comment. You see all these issues from the perspective of holding the very views of the ARS that are part of the dispute. You see me as being disruptive when many editors at the beginning of this process saw it as a helpful attempt. Fine - that's your perogative. I will not post on this board again on this subject. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't fully agree with FeydHuxtable assessment. I think the RfC was just a unconstructive and possible disruptive idea as rather entrenched ideas which allude but don't address the core issues which would be innapropriate for a project RfC. The core problems were civility and behavioural ones that are handled civilly on a user level. Two of the key editors have come around a bit to see that maybe lines were crossed and it didn't help much. The RfC proposals all seemed to suggest that ARS as a group be sanctioned in various ways although the problems seemed centered not at the project level but at the user level, and isolated, generally speaking. Restricting Wikiprojects in any way from even getting neutral notices? That actually would be setting a rather troubling precedent and I don't see that doing anything but stirring up heated exchanges. Some of ARS' critics concerns will never be resolved unless the project is wiped out - that doesn't seem to be on the table here. What remains then is systematically ensuring our project remains neutral and finds way to address the concerns that are reasonable - like empty !votes - and do so benefitting all concerned. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- If that is really the reasoning, then there is no issue - but that's not how it reads from the motion to close and the previous comments by the proposer. If there is no issue, then there's no need, but I'd be happier if that were clear from editors on both sides of the original dispute Fritzpoll (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Huh?? Your intervention was most appreciated Fritzpoll, per Ikips comment above. And at the time an RFS looked a good idea, at least to me. Its just several of us now feel that the 1 or 2 who needed the original criticism have taken it on board. One of those two being me -I hadnt openly pushed for it but privately I was hoping that ARS might one day have an input into making Policy , as until policy becomes more inclusion friendly many good articles are inevitably going to be lost . But its now very clear to me I was misguided on that one. Both ARS veterans and respected inclusion minded editors like Uncle G clearly feel ARS should stick closely to its remit and not do anything else that risks creating conflict with other sections of the community. And I dont see there being a single person thats not accepting that now its been spelled out. If there was an RFC what current issue is there for it to address? I dont see a single tangible issue we haven't conceded on. Bilateral Relations was until recently an area of conflict, but Ikip's gone to great lengths to alleviate concerns on that, and according to one person who wanted to heavily reduce the number of BR articles IKIPs solution is exactly what he wanted. What more do folk want? An abject apology? I dont think either side should have to apologise – as far as I can tell most everyone was acting in good faith , just from different perspectives. So is there any reason why we cant draw a line under this, as a lesson learned? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Related to dismissal of any problems, there is an ongoing effort to revert war "Article Rescue Squadron is no different from any of the hundreds of wikiprojects, except for its scope" into the FAQ of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two threads to address this have been started below. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Motion to close and archive motions to close and archive this thread and its subthreads
Could we please stop moving to close every single section and subsection of this? It's rather hard to have new input on anything when the old input is repeated ad nauseum.
Anyone who votes "support" or "oppose" below this will be lit on fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)