Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60

Suggestion

Only list articles that can be improved through editing and by being listed, that means that members of ARS should be improving them. Don't list articles where there is no need for improvement (because it's self evident or otherwise), as that is more what seems like canvassing. If we focus on actually improving articles at AfD and then voting, any canvassing comments would hold no water, because we clearly improved the article.

As an example, I just finished rescuing The British Edda, which looked like this upon nomination and like this when I was done with it.

This is the kind of thing we need to do, it's the kind of thing we should have been focusing on doing all along. SilverserenC 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work on that article, Silver. After your good work, keeping the article became an uncontroversial decision, and the nomination was withdrawn. If all of ARS's work was like this, there would be little controversy about the project.
As a non-member of this project and frequent critic of it, I think that you are quite right to recommend a focus on improving articles. Most of the controversy has originated out of a perception that the ARS does too much voting and not enough improvement. (It seem to me that concerns about the quality of ARS-inspired improvements and the drama which sometimes follows the involvement of some ARS members are just extensions of those two big issues). That does raise a question of whether the existence of a listing should be taken by ARS members as encouragement to !vote on article. I don't have an easy answer to that one, other than to think that if ARS members had a self-denying policy of never voting on anything in the rescue list, their article improvement work would be immune from votestacking criticism. That may too big a step for editors to even contemplate, but it seems to me that what rescued The British Edda was not Silver's "strong keep" vote. The decisive factor was Silver's evidence of available sources and hir subsequent improvement of the article, which would clearly have been kept even if Silver had never voted at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You have my strong support Silverseren.--v/r - TP 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I was a participant in that discussion, and the page rescue improvement was central to my keep assertion. This kind of work is exactly what gives the ARS a good name. I very much agree with Silver's suggestion here. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of article improvement, but please everyone, if you find evidence that an article meets notability criteria and don't have time to use that to improve the article, add this to the AfD discussion for the assistance of other editors.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could also add to the list articles who have evident notability, but this notability isn't expressed in the article. For example, a subject where there are tons of available sources in a search, but these sources aren't being used in an article. That would be a case where we could help and improve the article, even if notability should be clear. Because, no matter how things should work, how organized and good an article looks does affect people's votes in AfD. SilverserenC 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for {{Rescue}} template is occurring

A deletion review discussion is taking place regarding the deletion of the {{Rescue}} template, located at: Deletion review, January 27 – Template:Rescue. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Holy hell we know. I've had eleven beers and am an angry drunk. Goodnight.  :-)--Milowent • hasspoken 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for {{Rescue cleanup}} template is occurring

A deletion discussion is taking place regarding the deletion of the {{Rescue cleanup}} template, located at: Deletion review, January 25 – Template:Rescue cleanup.

This is how the actual template appears (below): {{Rescue cleanup}} —posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 03:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Process to create stubs is broken

Milowent points out how the process to create new stubs is broken an is likely to bite newcomers. I think this example merits a RfC (in which deletionists can express their view) so that guidelines can be updated to avoid cases like this. At the very least, WP:PEACOCK should be amended so that it excludes claims of notability at stubs, as well as expresions that are found in the references provided. Also I think newcomers should be encouraged to place "new article" templates. Diego (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Anything we do here needs to be done carefully, because these sorts of debates about speedy deletion are long-simmering. I am sure there are archives of past debates and proposals to be examined. Ideally, we also need to marshall far more examples--Milowent • hasspoken 15:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AfDs

Hey, now that the template is gone there is no categorizing of articles at AfD, I guess? I mean, I looked at the list on your main page and looked at three or four of them--one I could close as a delete immediately, and the others I looked at were clear deletes anyway. So, do you all have a filtering process to pick out the worthwhile ones? Drmies (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Membership seems to be remaining steady. There has never been a formal filtering process, indeed, membership in ARS was never required to use the template. Oftentimes tagged or listed articles really can't be rescued, but the handmade list seems to be eliciting more discussion of these things.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
In some ways the handmade list is better and easier than the Rescue template. I participated in many rescues, but rarely tagged an article for rescue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision of 'Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list' page

See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list#A proposed revision to this project page. I suggest that any responses are posted there, to keep the discussion centralised (I'd not seen this page when I started it. Doh!) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A deletion discussion has occurred and ended for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

A deletion discussion took place regarding the ARS Rescue list at Miscellany for deletion. The result of the discussion was "Keep per WP:SNOW". Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Organize

ARS can easily maintain a list like many other WikiProjects do. I've done considerable work to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron page to make it more user friendly, clearer and less partisan. I've also created a new rescue list Located here. The rescue list would suffice, in my opinion, as a collaborative environment for ARS users and interested persons, and in many ways much more so than a template. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I've blanked the Article list page and deactivated the bot task that was updating it. You may want to redirect the "Article list" link in the toolbar to the rescue list page you've announced above. —SW— converse 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done Northamerica1000(talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There's significant precedent for WikiProjects to maintain lists of content for cleanup. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

CFS Notice

ANI

This list is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Article Rescue Squadron again. Dream Focus 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow... Some people just can't let something go...
In reviewing The Devil's Advocate's contribution history since about December 2011 (I did not look back further at this time, but someone else may wish to take a closer look), this individual really seems to be gunning for ARS and some of the more active members such as Dream Focus. In fact, his behaviour reminds me of what I remember seeing from A Man In Black...

While I'm not all that involved with ARS, I, like many, many other editors have rescued "hopeless" articles in the past (a few examples: Firefox Portable diff AfD, Mibbit diff AfD) and while looking at this from outside of ARS, The Devil's Advocate really seems to have some sort of agenda. I'm sure he will be reading this and I strongly advise him to drop it because he is on the verge of stirring up a whole lot more people (WP:GODWIN) than just a few "ARS members". If he does so, he really will be biting off a whole lot more than he can chew.

I personally see The Devil's Advocate's behaviours towards ARS and certain ARS members as nothing more than bullying, harassment, and attempts to game the system. As a past victim of such bullying (and eventually cyberstalking), I will be speaking out about this if The Devil's Advocate decides to continue down this current path, and he likely won't like the increased scrutiny and attention it will bring him. As a community, Wikipedia must constantly and consistently make it clear that such behaviours are unacceptable within our community. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another ANI for ARS is occurring

The same user that started the (now closed) ANI directly above this section has started another, located at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – ARS Canvassing at AfD. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note – The above discussion has been closed. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would encourage people only to comment if they have something important to add to that discussion. Both Drmies and myself, two of the accused parties, have now responded. NA1000, you should respond too if you haven't, I suppose, since you are the alleged evil canvasser. But this ANI is beneath being made into an even greater drama.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that there is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Honestly, tell me straight, is The Devil's Advocate on the ARS' payroll? Is he part of some elite counter-intelligence propagandist squad, acting as a hyper-inclusionist double-agent with mission parameters designed to convince the greater community that there really is as much persecution of ARS members as some ARS members claim and, in turn, inspire increased sympathy for the ARS and the inclusionist faction as a whole? Because...I suspect that's what he's beginning to accomplish. Dramarama. When I accepted NA1K's (rather surprising) invitation to join the ARS the other day, I didn't realize I was joining a group of martyrs / cynical counter-intelligence agents specializing in mass manipulation experiments. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • LOL Either that or ARS really is being targeted and/or trolled, right? :) --Tothwolf (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: discussion was previously closed/hatted by User:Pablo X

  • (Clarification from Northamerica1000(talk) 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC): The following is information that was omitted after another user reverted the closure (hatting) of this discussion by User:Pablo X, without retaining Pablo X's comment for context)":

"Chaps - a) it's closed; b) can you not see that posting threads like this one can be seen as a call to arms, if not outright canvassing?" pablo 13:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)}}

  • (Clarification from Northamerica1000(talk) 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC): The following comment re-added; it is based upon the comment above by User:Pablo X after this discussion was previously closed (hatted) by User:Pablo X):

"Just a note, it is entirely appropriate to post a neutrally-worded notification on a WikiProject's talk page when the WikiProject is being discussed at ANI."

  • Yes. I think there would perhaps be more gained by just letting other editors comment for a while first though. See meat:DefendEachOther, applied to the group as a whole in this case. pablo 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
(Note): The above comment appears to be based upon the discussion being unhatted (by another user, not myself), after the above user (pablo) hatted this thread. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Does it really, though? No. It was of course a reply to this comment by you, as you presumably know, seeing as you removed it here, thus stranding my reply. Please don't do that. pablo 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps consider not hatting discussions prematurely; I didn't want my comment to be taken out of context after the hat was removed, which is what would have occurred, because your 'closing' comment wasn't included/copy-pasted after it was unhatted (by another user). Thank you for your consideration! Northamerica1000(talk) 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
No clarification would have been necessary had you not insisted on buggering about removing and refactoring posts; I see you're still at it. Please do not do that. I archived (not hatted, get it right) the thread as the discussion to which it referred had been re-closed. That was reverted, fair enough. That was all that needed to be done. You are not the proprietor of this page, please stop reorganising it to suit your every passing whim. pablo 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the person that un-archived/reverted your post didn't include your comment, which would have stranded my post and made it entirely out of context. So, either way, clarification was needed. Per my efforts to correct above, plese assume good faith. Perhaps consider not archiving discussions so quickly in the future, per the notion of not reorganizing as you state above. Peace. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No. Here the page as it was, with my reply to your note. No clarification is needed. And the obfuscating bugger's muddle you have made of this does no good to anyone. To reiterate: please do not refactor discussions to suit your own preferences; this includes removing your own comments after others have replied to them. pablo 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Which would have left my comment entirely out of context,: "Just a note, it is entirely appropriate to post a neutrally-worded notification on a WikiProject's talk page when the WikiProject is being discussed at ANI." Per your post above, when it was un-archived, my comment would have appeared to have been a response to User:Tothwolf's statement. Perhaps you should ask the person who unarchived the discussion you archived to not have omitted your closing comment, which created the problem. Anyway, let's not go on and on about it. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Na1000, you're a fine one to talk about taking things out of context, after you removed a post by someone else, to which I responded, from your own talk page and pasted it on mine with your reply--minus the original comment. Your own talk page shows enough battlefield mentality already; don't spread it to other pages. And now I'm done with you. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That was an error. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Resume of section comments

  • The more I look into this, the more inclined I am to believe that The Devil's Advocate is simply trolling both ARS and the larger Wikipedia community for lulz. (It's not like we've never seen that sort of thing before, right?) Either that or maybe he is just obsessed with ARS? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you all please stop making uncivil comments about me on this talk page? Several people who commented on ANI saw the report as being legitimately based, including the admin who ultimately closed the discussion. All but a few of the objections were from members of this group. There is no persecution of your group and rather than listening to the echo chamber you should try to consider what the people outside the group are actually saying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Knock it off already, Na1000. You're just baiting. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This was an honest statement that the person politely declined after I later sent them an invite template; those critical of the project would likely only help to improve it. All are welcome to join the project. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rescue list discussion at Village Pump

A discussion is occurring regarding the WikiProject Article rescue squadron rescue list, located here: Village pump (policy) – Use of the article rescue list for disputing a spinout/merge. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I created a new subpage to offer suggestions for finding search results

Not sure where to link to this from. I think this will be helpful to people looking for sources. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Search suggestions I've often time people say they found no results, then I or someone else changes what is being searched for, and then results are found to prove notability. Dream Focus 14:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neat ideas. Perhaps consider adding it as a subsection to the ARS Guide to saving articles. Other options include integrating the page as-is (with links to the page) into the project, and developing the page more. Thanks for the positive contribution! Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion RE-OPENED for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

(posted by Wikipedia editor) —Northamerica1000(talk) 20:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It also seems to have closed again. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review now occurring for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

(posted by Wikipedia editor) —Northamerica1000(talk) 01:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • SWEET JESUS, how can we get anything actually having to do with improving an encyclopedia done around here? I could sic DA on my long standing draft of User:Milowent/Union Course, he might disappear for a month if he tried.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Given the continued AN/I posts and now this, I'm tempted to draft a RFC/U for The Devil's Advocate (if someone else is considering this, I'll gladly help with diffs). This is either a case of WP:IDHT and/or he really is attempting to troll ARS and the larger Wikipedia community and stir up some sort of silly "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" fight between editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Go for it. The editor seems to have problem letting go in other disputes as well, judging from conversations on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Apparently The Devil's Advocate doesn't like the idea of an RFC/U very much. He has filed a WQA regarding ARS and myself after I hatted his comments on my talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Posting to the ARS Rescue list

Posting these links in case people aren't aware of the existence of these discussions on the Rescue list talk page:

—Northamerica1000(talk) 07:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Death of AfD?

Are you suggesting that all this week's bad blood has been for nothing? :-) Diego (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
lol, no. But if AfD is truly dying, we should be examining why and what its effects are. AfD does have a valid purpose that I think even the most ardent inclusionist would approve of--to remove absolute crap.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Crap goes in the WP:TOILET.--v/r - TP 21:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey! How come nobody has created that wikipage yet? Diego (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It just seems that participation is declining to problematic levels, and I would like to determine how we could measure it accurately. Perhaps some sampling of one months AfD from 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, and counting the number of votes per AfD and number of relistings.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't really see it. AfD has always been blighted by poor nominations, poor arguments (for both keeping and deleting) and a lack of participation from open-minded clueful editors who are prepared to put effort into evaluating a subject's notability. It still achieves the right outcome most of the time though. --Michig (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
90% of AfDs could be decided by monkeys, its the other 10% I worry about, that's where the problems arise.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Past discussions of whether AfD participation is declining add links below.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Working to improve AfD nominations would be a good start. e.g. encouraging nominators to explain why the article should be deleted, with reference to appropriate guidelines/policies, and to explain what efforts they made to determine notability prior to AfD, and what they found, if anything. There are far too many 'It doesn't seem notable'-type nominations that often just waste other editors' time. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Participation at AFD seems to have declined significantly in recent years and the amount of relisting is getting silly now. The SOPA lockout broke my habit of patrolling AFD and I'm in no rush to return to this thankless task. Warden (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've thought of a possible bot-like way to sample AfD participation over time. Its not perfect, but I think would yield some useful stats. For any given day of archived AfDs, say take April 12, 2008 as a start, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 12, you pull out (1) the number of discussions on that page (80), (2) the number of times the word "keep" appears (395), unless a finer way to discern "votes" exists like Scottywong's counters seem to be able to do, (3) the number of times "delete" appears (796), and (4) the number of times "relisted" appears. From this data you can derive a "Participation Strength" number, which will equal the number of "keeps" plus the number of "deletes" divided by the number of AfDs for that day; so you roughly are getting the avg number of "votes" per AfD (14.89 for my example). You can also derive a Relist Percentage, which will be the the number of AfDs for that day divided by the number of relists (5%). I am sure there are many ways this can be refined. Here is a sample of the stats for April 12 on 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011:
Date #ofAfDs #"keep" #"delete" #"relisted" Participation Strength # Relist %
April 12, 2008 80 395 198 796 398 4 2 14.89 7.45 5% 2.5%
April 12, 2009 61 415 414 5 13.59 8%
April 12, 2010 48 131 254 0 8.02 0%
April 12, 2011 92 153 306 37 4.98 40%
You'd need a larger sample size to get reliable results (preferably a full month snapshot per year, for instance), but even this very small example shows a disturbing picture: a huge drop from 2008-2011 from almost 15 votes per AfD to only 5 (ETA: my 12 apr 2008 numbers were flawed, I have corrected), and a big jump in relists in 2011. Ideally, there could also be some way to modify the "Participation Strength" number to account for relists, which means an AfD took 14 days or longer to get the votes it did get.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting theory and I'd definitely like to see more comprehensive analysis, but I can't match the numbers you get for 2008 April 12. A text search on that archive shows only 198 keeps and 398 deletes for a ratio of 7.45, not the figures you got. If anything it looks like 2009 April 12 was a statistical anomaly rather than a norm. For instance, using your method on days on either side of the 2008, 2009 and 2011 logs yields the following:
Date #ofAfDs #"keep" #"delete" #"relisted" Participation Strength # Relist %
April 11, 2008 108 264 591 1 7.92 1%
April 13, 2008 89 212 495 9 7.94 10%
April 13, 2009 85 196 419 5 7.2 6%
April 11, 2011 106 292 351 49 6.07 46%
April 13, 2011 61 198 241 27 7.2 44%
These figures, as well as the figure I get for 2008 April 12, suggests that AFD participation has kept rather steady at around 7 votes per nomination. Relistings vary so wildly as to be unreliable at this sample size. It's also worth remembering that individual dates fall on different days of the week and this can have a drastic effect on statistical results. I think you'll need to analyse the whole month of April over the years in question to get a better result. I'm very curious to see results on a larger scale. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree we really need a full month per month to come up with anything reliable. Not sure what I did with my April 12 08 numbers, I'll need to go back and check them again, surely a human error that hopefully could be avoided through a bot-type process.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I fixed my original table, I must have counted 2008 April 12 twice (I cut and pasted the text into a Word doc to do a quick and dirty count of the number of "keep" and "delete"s, I bet I hit paste twice arrggghhh). So my table of four random days is not really proof of anything...yet. But I am still intrigued to expand this project and see if my hypothesis makes sense. Relistings are way up by my subjective view of things, and this seems due to lack of AfD participation.
Another factor I would ideally account for would be speedy delete closes -- these typically close very fast and with just a few votes if things are going smoothly.
A better Participation Strength value would also account for the number of days an AfD is open, this would also account for the relisting problem and speedy delete closes. The current table, for example, sees 80 AfDs for 12 April 2008, and treats them no different than the 92 AfDs from 12 April 2011. But I believe AfDs are held open longer in 2011 on avg than in 2008. Its very likely the 80 AfDs in 2008 were open on avg for 7 days or less, while the ones in 2011 were possibly open longer on avg due to later closes and more relistings. Indeed, I forgot that AfDs used to be open for only 5 days instead of 7, and this did not change until April 2009.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
At least in the last six months, I have noticed a significant decrease in participation at AfD. As of late, many nominations are going through multiple relists. The Template:Rescue discussion highlights the problem at AfD well. Too many AfD regulars have unsettled longterm disputes, which has a tendency to spill over into the debates. It might be best if the Article rescue squadron were renamed, and a differently named and worded template be used.

I know this is a perennial proposal, however merge discussions should take place at AfD, and Articles for Deletion should be renamed to Articles for Discussion. Due to the three year merge discussion backlog, many users are using AfD for merge discussions. It is sensible to merge requested mergers with AfD, but Articles for deletion would be inaccurate in such a case. It has worked well for Redirects for discussion, and it would eliminate the many of the issues surrounding AfD. The process is supposed to simply be about discussing whether or not an article subject meets Wikipedia's policy guidelines. The deletionist and inclusionist terms need to be done away with, as it creates an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere. If AfD functioned as intended, discussions would be more civil, and they would be more of a discussion rather than a simple vote. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Quick note: In what must be a new record, there are still 74 unclosed AfDs that were opened or last relisted on February 9, ten days ago.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DA at AN again

  • Already closed, but flagging for folks. Devil's Advocate has created so many ANI threads I really can't keep count. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Additional_evidence_of_ARS_canvassing. What's interesting about the AfD he questions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keerthi sagathia, is that I think the participants were completely transparent and honest about the issues with the article. No traditional "deletionists" even bothered to show up, perhaps because the conversation was so forthright. The continuing decline of AfD participation is also in play.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, DA hasn't been the only one starting these discussion threads. The range has also been much wider that just the administrators' noticeboards and has included AN, AN/I, VPP, WQA, TFD, DRV, and probably other locations I'm forgetting at the moment. It might be interesting later on to compile a timeline of all these discussions. It still amazes me how such a small number of people with seemingly little effort can draw so many others into a massive drama storm. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • This is a handy resource. pablo 17:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
        • True. I was thinking more about some of the most recent stuff, but I suppose it could be linked there. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Milowent will probably add it at some point, or you could. Or I could, but a) I'm off to bed, and b) probably best to wait until the current batch is complete, I think there are still a couple of noticeboards somewhere in the dustier corners of Wikipedia that don't contain extensive discussion of the ARS. pablo 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has brought up ARS at WP:CP just yet, or at least not that I've seen. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Some of the articles that Northamerica1000 has deprodded as worthy of rescue (see this thread on the ARS talk page) have been clear copyvios, but WP:CR wasn't needed; CSD G12 works just fine in such cases. He should have checked before deprodding, though. Deor (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you point to any specific examples? Were they tagged as being copyright violations? Dream Focus 13:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No, they weren't tagged. (If someone had noticed that they were copyvios, they presumably would have been dealt with in some way other than prodding.) But if I recall correctly, in the case of .35 Newton at least, NA1000 added to the article a reference to the source that the article's text was copied from, so he must have seen that the text was identical to the source's. One cannot deal with an article that's a complete copyvio just by adding a ref to what it's copied from; and even if one thinks that the topic is notable, one should almost certainly let the article be deleted before rewriting it in non-copyvio form (so that the foundational copyvio doesn't remain in the article's history). My main point, however, is that folk who take it upon themselves to remove prod tags (or non-G12 CSD tags) or who attempt to save articles at AfD would be well advised to check that what they're "rescuing" isn't a copyright violation. Deor (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Prod and AfD are never the way to deal with a copyvio. Generally the best thing to do with notable subjects that contain copyvios is to report them to WP:CP. Editors there are skilled in determining if anything can be salvaged. In the case of complete copyvios of notable subjects where nothing can be salvaged, editors at WP:CP can sometimes replace the copyvio with a new stub or short article. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, prod and AfD are not the way to deal with copyvios, but sometimes people prod or AfD them without having determined that they're copyvios. Deprodding them or striving to keep them at AfD, however, are even worse ways of dealing with them. Deor (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This is true. If something is found to be a copyvio and is a subject worthy of an article, listing at WP:CP (with the article properly templated) and deprodding would be sensible. If the subject would never pass AfD anyway, then the sensible thing to do with the copyvio is CSD it. The place where this might get contentious is determining if a subject should even have an article. In the subject areas I mostly work in, I would say that out of all the copyvios I've seen, probably only about half should have articles and would have made it through AFD if they had been listed there. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Template Historical Treatment Discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:Rescue and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue. Just FYI, it really has nothing to do with the current work we are doing.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wheelchair_Epidemic/CrapArticle (I updated Milowent's links to point to current (archived) discussion locations.) --Elvey (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Input sought on draft essay

AFD causes editor attrition, we all know it, as reflected by Editor Trends and by the logic of WP:ACTRIAL.

We need to find a permanent solution to the deletions of good-faith contribution. Please comment on, add to, and consider Wikipedia:Deletions and Openness.

There are a lot of ideas in there right now-- the one closest to my heart is creating a "shared drafting space" that combines the freedom of userspace-drafts with the collaboration of article space. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion votes hurt writers' feelings

fyi this discussion is taking place: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Reminder--_Delete_votes_hurt_writers.27_feelings Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting discussion, I would chime in but who knows how to get heard in those mass discussion. The original poster is completely correct in that new editors are run off all the time. Handling these new editors nicely is often not done right.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with all your points. To add: the format for discussions at Wikipedia has not adjusted to the number of wannabe contributors. It is nice to say that "consensus rules", but when thousands of wikipedians have strong feelings about a topic, consensus gets drowned out by the loudest. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dava

The Content Rescue List posting for the above template is and was problematic, as was the response to it. This is exactly the type of behavior that ARS-detractors point to as an issue, and I don't think they're wrong to be pointing to it. There was literally nothing to be done to improve the template in this instance; all that could be hoped for was a pile-on of keep votes from ARS members responding to the Content Rescue List posting, and that is exactly what happened.

If there is any interest among ARS members in avoiding canvassing accusations and the like, I highly recommend avoiding this type of response to similar Content Rescue List postings in the future. I've been impressed during my limited time as a member, coming from a background of not exactly being the world's biggest ARS fan, with how selective membership appears to be in terms of choosing articles to fix up in the face of AFD nominations. I'd like to think a TFD like this would be selected against.

Just my two cents, and any and all are free to whole-heartedly and vehemently disagree with me :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ginsengbomb, we can't select who will be posting articles to the rescue list. It's true that this entry looked as an attempt to just keep favorable !votes; but a request like this could also serve for bringing more eyeballs to a analyze the problem in depth. Maybe editors could identify a way to reorganize all tagged articles, or suggest a way to improve the base Infobox settlement template so that it doubles for the specialized use that this template supported. Thouthful discussion is also a way to improve Wikipedia and an attempt to get it should not be seen as canvasing.
Given that the list is open to anyone to watch and a disclosure is (usually) placed at XfDs to allow anyone participating to find about it. At the end, if the list only recruits people with a keep attitude, that's the fault of detractors for not using the list themselves to find about disputed deletions and express their own opinion. And editors that only show in to write a "me too" Keep without any valid arguments are acting against the current recommended ARS behavior, and their opinions should be discarded by the closing Admin anyway. So how could any of this be blamed on the Squadron?
(All that said, I agree with you that this is not how an entry to the list should be worked out. Thus I've expanded the List instructions to ask people writing new entries to elaborate on how they expect the ARS can help; this should discourage cases like this one.) Diego (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I actually agree with 100% of what you just wrote. Literally: 100% of it. And I am perhaps oversensitive to this type of thing because I've semi-consulted with The Devil's Advocate as he develops his RFC on the ARS, which calls out activities like this. I'm less concerned with the initial posting -- obviously the ARS can't really be held accountable for the items other editors bring to the CRL. That's out of our control. Our response, however, is in our control. People think they know what to expect when bringing something to the ARS' attention, and responses of this kind to CRL listings like this tend to confirm their expectations. Really, my entire rant above has only one salient sentence: "I'd like to think a TFD like this would be selected against," and it appears as if you more or less agree with that sentiment.

But, again, I honestly and sincerely agree with all of what you just wrote. Perhaps I'm mostly concerned with appearances. When I'm not on Wikipedia I work partly in PR, so I have a knee-jerk instinct to look at things almost too much in terms of how they appear to external players :).

Regardless, thank you for the reply. This is helpful. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • ARS can't do much about a template. The canvassing was by who posted it there, a non-ARS member, who easily could do the same thing in about 10 places. What concerns me is that the ARS continues to find article that should have never been nominated for deletion. I hope Devil's Advocate proposes that such nominators be perma-banned for the extreme harm they are doing to the project. Its outrageous.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I think, based on this, you will find his desired outcomes rather disappointing :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't necessarily that people are posting inappropriate articles to the rescue list, there's nothing practical that can be done to stop that. The problem is the response to that posting. Once people figure out that posting an XfD to the rescue list will elicit a predictable response from the usual suspects, they will continue doing it. —SW— chatter 19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's a problem inherent with posting anything anywhere. People have figured out that nominating something for deletion is a great way to attract people to vote delete, AfD participation is so low at this point that its breaking down.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your logic. Nominating something for deletion doesn't attract only delete voters, it neutrally attracts all types of voters (including those rare voters who don't vote the same way at every AfD). If it only attracted delete voters, then all non-rescue-tagged AfD's would close as delete. Posting a notice in a neutral location attracts all types of voters. Posting a notice at the ARS rescue list, however, seems to consistently and overwhelmingly attract one type of voter. Like I said, it is the reaction to the posting that is the problem, not the posting itself. (Note that I'm not singling anyone out, nor am I implying that all ARS members react inappropriately to these postings.) —SW— spill the beans 17:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand this discussion and I reject all accusations. I listed the Template here to get the expertise of ARS not their votes. I believe it is a grave mistake to delete such templates, and the deletion request didn't even bother to notify the creator or the related projects. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to rethink the Rescue List?

The Rescue List has been running for more than one month by now. In that time it has undergone several interesting situations that allows us to assess what is working and what may cause problems with the community at large.

I've found that the main purposes of the list are the following (if you are using the list for another purpose please describe them in the comments below):

What works:

  1. The list is used to notify about disputed AfDs, where some editor thinks the nomination is not a clear-cut case and thus more attention from the community is requested. This is the main purpose for which the list is used, although the following ones are also available as side effects.
  2. To have a friendly place where newbies can be instructed on the relevant policies with respect to new articles and the deletion process, without an adversarial tone. This use is strongly encouraged by WP:DONTBITE, and AfDs are not the proper place nor are commonly used to this purpose.
  3. A place where ARS members can discuss ways to improve the content. This could also be done properly at the AfD page itself, where editors that are not ARS members would also participate, so it's somewhat redundant.


Concerns with the list

  1. We all know the main concern is the possibility of canvassing in general and votestacking in particular. Although the {{rescue list}} notification is worded in a neutral tone, and everybody is invited to follow it, the rescue list is associated with the Rescue squadron which is undeniably slanted towards inclusionism. Although the participants that show to comment in the discussions through the list are mainly adhering to guidelines and providing policy-based commentary, there are people raising concerns that the overall effect of appearing in the list is not nonpartisan enough to gather opinions valid for a true consensus.
  2. A minor concern raised during this time is that the list is a duplicate place for discussion, and most of its comments could be placed in the XfD discussion itself.
  3. There are also doubts on the kind of content that should be included. Are merge discussions allowed? Prods? Requests to improve articles that are not in a deletion process but only in bad shape?


So, what do you think of these concerns and strengths, and how can we solve the former without hurting the later? I have one proposal to address them that I'm going to pursue during the next weeks. Diego (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooterwalker below asks some questions about how the list is working, with respect to the types of articles that can be listed. This is how I see it from the recent usage of the list in the last month.
  1. First: the list has been used mainly to post articles in AfDs or proposed for deletion. In theory any article can be requested for rescue; the ARS has many editors with good searching skills when it comes to finding sources for notability and verifiability.
  2. Second: In practice the list is typically used to request feedback at disputed discussions, so it works as a place to ask for policy based commentary where the applicability of content policies is not clear. Most cases with a clear-cut keep or delete are not notified for rescue. This is why I suggest creating the new list as a noticeboard for dispute resolution specialized at deletions; this is mainly how it's working now.
  3. Third: It's not clear what should happen when an article is listed and it doesn't fall into the grey area of disputed interpretations of policies and it's rather a clear keep or delete. Usually editors have pointed so and have given advice to the editor who created the notification. The !votes in such cases often have provided policy-based analysis, so even if the article is not improved at least the debate has got a wider perspective. !votes that don't provide further analysis should be discounted by the closing administrator so they shouldn't influence the outcome of a discussion.
  4. Fourth: In my particular opinion the ARS should not have the sole responsibility to policing and oversight of people participating in the deletion discussions notified through the list; this should be a responsibility shared with all people participating in AfDs. That's why I suggested moving the list, to turn it into a community tool. Other members may disagree with this view. Diego (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft of a proposal

The rescue list should be moved to a centralized place in the Project space and detached from the Article Resque Squadron. Only the first of its current purposes should be kept, that of notifying editors interested in deletion discussions of unclear status. Policies and guidelines pointing to the Rescue squadron should be updated to point to this noticeboard instead (the ARS could still be mentioned, but outside the suggested procedure).

This central place would work like a second tier with respect to Article for Deletion discussions, just like dispute resolution has both the process of third opinion for simple cases, but also a Dispute resolution noticeboard for deeper concerns. Actually I think a subpage under the Dispute resolution noticeboard would be the perfect place to locate this new list, since disputed deletions are the ones currently notified to the ARS.

Think about it; we have noticeboards to deal with problematic cases under almost all policies (administrators, mergers, BLPs, Copyright problems...) but there's not a Wikipedia:AfD/Noticeboard for one of the most disputed topics, article creation and deletion. We could use this working Rescue List to kickstart that centralized notification. The current list is also followed by some people that doesn't agree with the Squadron dynamics, so it would start with a fairly neutral ground to gather feedback from a nonpartisan audience. If disputed deletion discussions (DdD?) are publicized through a central noticeboard, posting an XfD there couldn't be seen as a request to gather Keep !votes but as a request to attract more varied opinions; it would be a thematic RfC for deletion discussions. The wide community consensus would be better represented, and everybody wins.

Differences with AfD

But, isn't this new noticeboard redundant with the AfD list itslef? In theory yes, it could be seen that way, since ideally all AfDs should be reviewed by as many editors as possible. But the current policies and stablished practice are encouragingmandating that almost all candidates for deletion go through the AfD, so it gets an overwhelming amount of notices.

In practice it's better to review only those Category:AfD debates classified under the categories of your interest, so one tends to see discussions filtered by topic. The practical difference of the proposed noticeboard is that it would filter the number of AfDs without a slant for any particular area; it would notify of discussions where "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" is the topic of interest. So the AfD and the new noticeboard would serve different purposes, notifying people interested in evaluating how policies and guidelines are being used in those grey area articles where current rules do not provide a clear-cut decision, thus helping to maintain a consistent enforcement.

Role of the ARS

The ARS project talk page could then be used for discussing more in-depth concerns instead of the article-by-article review that the Rescue list provides now, and which should be taken to the AfDs themselves instead.

Thus the ARS would be used for the other purposes of the current Rescue list, namely providing a friendly place for newbies and coordinating the efforts to improve content (discussing search strategies for sources, proposing drafts of policy changes from an inclusionist perspective, notifying of quality problems found in a large class of articles...)

The noticeboard would provide the ARS with the same invaluable tool that the Rescue list is now, but it wouldn't attract the attention to the project that it does now, since it would be operated in a purely neutral way. We would work like the WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling does, using a community tool to supervise a project-specific concern.

Why the proposal

I have posted this proposal here first so that people interested in the dynamics of the ARS will have a chance to express their opinions, in a context where the project trajectory is known. After a few days of feedback I will post an RfC to the Village Pump with a refined proposal, to gather community-wide feedback on this new noticeboard. Diego (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Not taking away from your efforts here, Diego, but I am not really sure why this proposal is necessary and whether it would really solve anything. The rescue list serve serves my needs and already survived a ridiculous MfD and deletion review. I hate wasting time on process development, I just like the simple process we have to be used to actually improve content on the project. I mean, "deletion discussions of unclear status"? There are clearly cases where AfD noms simply suck and were done with no forethought, those aren't "unclear" at all, they need rescue. Or the nominator needs to be slapped with a ruler, I just saw TenPoundHammer was brought to AN for that yesterday.
I am aware that The Devil's Advocate is cooking up a ridiculous RFC on the ARS because he won't listen to repeated requests from non-ARS folks to put down the stick, but we can't stop the random editor who comes around every 6 months and thinks the whole world is wrong. I saw that the draft RFC moans about a discussion where DreamFocus articulately advocated deletion. REALLY? Dream voted to delete? That's the despicable stuff we are doing?
If we take away the rescue list, or its taken from us, I'll just start my own private rescue list for anyone interested.
The only concern anyone has with the rescue list of potential merit is the canvassing bogeyman, yet we all know that AfD itself was designed to be a system to canvass for deletion--THAT IS ITS WHOLE PURPOSE! The counters to the canvassing concerns are already in place: (1) Non-ARS members who also watchlist our list--they are just as inclined to vote "delete" if a vacuous "keep" vote is produced; (2) meaningless "keep" votes are already discounted at AfD. When there are new articles added to the rescue list, sometimes I try to weigh in and opine on whether its a good listing. If we want to have a group of ARS members respected by all who regularly try to do that more formally, i.e., "endorse" or "review" rescue nominations, I have no problem with that. We could even have a loyal opposition deletionist serve in that role, there are many "deletionists" who recognize the good work of the ARS, they just don't need to come around every week to comment on it.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Why the proposal is needed?
  • Short answer: because of this, and this, and also this of course.
  • Average-length answer: because Caesar's wife must be above suspicion and we have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.
  • Long answer: I'm trying to exploit the current Rescue List momentum to get rid of the ARS's bad name and build a community-wide consensus. I think the timing is perfect for it; we have a well-oiled machinery, there are no active fights and the overall comments from our detractors seem to be mainly positive of the current working. But all this is easily spoiled, as the above template discussions show; a few small incidents of purported canvassing can reopen the flood of opposing editors that led to the rescue tag deletion.
You say that you would re-create the list if it was moved. Can you explain what purpose would it serve that you could't get from the centralized place? I honestly can't see any reason (other than patriotism and pride, I mean) why the rescue list should be kept under the ARS space instead of we just having a well-promoted wikilink to main space; but those reasons may very well exist, so that's why opened this two-headed discussion. But there are also very good reasons to move the list, reasons that go beyond the ARS project and affect the whole community. Even if The Devil's Advocate RfC is toothless (something that I wouldn't like to test BTW), we would do well to avoid it for the sake of everybody's sanity.
As you point out, we have a good defense against canvassing accusations because anyone can follow the list. Moving the list now to a neutral space would be a way to make this defense the official position of the Rescue Squadron, an endorsement of the list as a non-partisan community tool. The inner workings would be basically the same, while keeping up appearances; we would "place our money" where our mouth is. This good faith move, now that we can do it, is a safe way to deactivate the complains, and avoid all the ensuing drama of a new nomination on the project behavior, of uncertain outcome. Everybody wins except the attention whores.
Appearances are important to a community project. You complain that the Articles for Deletion is a tool for canvassing deletionists. What would you feel if every AfD notice pointed to the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians? Like it or not, this is how the Rescue List is seen by many. Is it not worth getting rid of this forever, for the price of a rename and a redirect? This could be a very good way to recruit that "loyal opposition deletionists" that you mentioned; giving them at good faith something they will value. Diego (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've invited The Devil's Advocate to this discussion, maybe his opinion will help us find if I'm on the right track. Diego (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a transparent attempt to dodge the RfC. Rather than trying to pre-empt wider community discussion how about you wait until there is a wider review of the list and this wikiproject's actions?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, if you assume good faith and read the proposal, you will find that I've already proposed to post it at the village pump to get a wider review of the list before this is implemented. As for dodging the RfC, can you blame us for trying to avoid it by essentially acknowledging that the problem you find with the ARS exists, and fixing it? Diego (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"This is a transparent attempt to dodge the RfC"? WTF? DA, you are the person obsessed with ARS and being told repeatedly to drop the stick. Now good-faith attempts at self-regulation are also BAD THINGS?--Milowent • hasspoken 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
So your proposal is to have a competing discussion that will be more favorable towards the group? Not much different. I don't see you acknowledging the problem at all. At several points here you say the list is not canvassing and propose making no actual changes to the list except to split it off the wikiproject. That seems more like trying to avoid the general issue for fear of the consequences by proposing a largely cosmetic change, while failing to address the core concerns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess if your goal is to destroy ARS, which is pretty apparent, you would be opposed to us having any internal discussion about self-improvement.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) TDA, this is not the hill you want to die on. What does it hurt you or the encyclopedia if the ARS wants to revamp their Rescue List under their own power? They're welcome to improve the page in any way they feel is useful, especially in the direction of reducing the risk of canvassing/votestacking. You're welcome to open your RfC as scheduled. The community is capable of participating in both processes, and if, as you seem to feel, this is all a nefarious scheme by the ARS to avoid you, the community is capable of recognizing that, also. You have very little mana left to expend in getting into fights like this (and yes, it sure looks to me like you arrived here spoiling for a fight, not to discuss) when you should be focusing on following the route the community explictly left open to you - the RfC. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I came here because Diego notified me of it. As to my reaction, it is not exactly unusual as I have already put a lot of time and effort into drafting the RfC and this is an obvious attempt at diminishing that effort. Diego has even made several comments above indicating that this proposal is about preventing the RfC from gaining traction before it even starts for fear that it will turn out badly for the group. Mind you they aren't actually proposing changes to the list or ARS, just a new noticeboard essentially functioning as the list that specifically calls out certain AfDs as lacking merit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
@Fluffernutter-Yup, I notified TDA so he should be welcome as long as he wants to express his views. For full disclosure, I though of this proposal when reading his comments on the project; that's why I felt important to notify him.
@The Devil Advocate-Since you've been kind enough to your draft in the open, this proposal is not about diminishing your effort but about addressing them in a way that benefits us all, just like policy says we should do. One of the main concerns you said you have about the ARS is the possibility of canvassing created by associating the list of notifications to the "inclusionist rethoric" of the Squadron. Logically detaching the list from the ARS would solve the campaigning problem; but now you say this would be just a cosmetic change. If you think that way, why did you include in your draft a comment about the instructions given in the list?
I frankly see no benefit in idly waiting until you finish your proposal. You're free to pursue that avenue, but I very much prefer my constructive approach (to build a community tool) better than your confrontational attempt to ban a whole group of editors from collaborating among themselves. I have no way to influence on your woes against user Northamerica1000, but the part that I could address merited this attempt at community consensus building. Given that this would be a community tool and no longer part of the ARS, I expect it to work in a way that everybody involved will approve while still providing the essential service that the ARS gets now from the rescue list and previously from the rescue tag, that of finding AfD articles with a potential for improvement. Diego (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
By golly here's a novel idea: why don't you guys brainstorm on a way to reform AfD itself? A POV fork of AfD as you've proposed is not going to get a lot of love and pushing that in connection with the ARS is only going to engender a lot of backlash against your group.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Let TDA post that RFC. It won't go anywhere, since it's a blatant attempt to further an agenda that fails to draw support from even die-hard deletionists such as myself (haha). TDA has managed to rack up 3,961 edits on Wikipedia since July of 2007, 1206 of which to article space. I do more than that in a month. He's managed to produce 19 articles (I'm impressed with this one), and if anyone knows him for anything it's for whining at ANI and other assorted venues. Who is going to take his RFC seriously? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Fluffernutter. There might be a handful ARS members that believe all criticism is meant to neutralize and eliminate ARS, but I've found there are more than a few ARS members who take the concerns of votebanking and factionalism seriously. If they want to pre-empt a community wide RFC by making improvements, I'd encourage it, even if they're not the solutions that outsiders might prefer. A few questions that might guide that discussion: First, is the rescue list for articles at AFD, or any article that requires sources? Second, is the rescue list for other MfDs (let alone mainspace discussions, or meta discussions) that don't require sources, and if so, what is it that the rescuers are providing if not sources? Third, what happens if someone lists something on the rescue list that shouldn't be there, or if the listing just results in a blanket of !votes instead of an actual improvement drive? Fourth, can that oversight and accountability be trusted to ARS, or does it need to come from outside? An implicit issue that underlies those four questions is whether ARS will try to structure the project to remain focused on good faith improvement, or if they want to reserve the maximum influence over any and all discussions of their choosing. I remain optimistic. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll address those questions in the section Concerns with the list that was created to discuss the current working of the rescue list. Diego (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Diego. To be specific, what is ARS supposed to do if they're being solicited to check in a discussion (like an MfD, a TfD, or a policy discussion) that doesn't need sources? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now I think it's up to the particular members to do as they wish. I don't think there's a direction (nor that we want one) on how to behave at deletion or policy discussions other that the general advice to avoid casting !votes as the only reaction; most of the advice given is about ways to find problems and improving anything that will leave the article in better shape (clean-up, removing unsourced content, improve prose, etc). Diego (talk)
  • The Article Rescue Squadron is the Rescue List, there no difference, never has been, never will be. There is no evidence of any vote stacking, that ridiculous accusation debated and dismissed time and time again. And those that keep bringing it up and trying to change things, aren't active in this Wikiproject at all, so I have to wonder why they are spending so much time on it anyway. Also, this should be discussed here, not at the Village Pump. Treat the ARS like you would any other Wikiproject. Dream Focus 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How it's supposed to work....

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Franklin's Island. I saw sources, I didn't have time, so I tagged it and Goodvac did the work such that everyone except the nominator was convinced of its notability. THAT is how the article rescue list is supposed to work. First time I've seen it work that well in a long time--good job. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Rather rude of you. People find sources all the time. Whether you can convince every one of the random group of people that show up to state their opinion of something, of an article's notability, isn't really relevant. Dream Focus 11:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I just took it that JClemens isn't scanning everyone's contributions all the time, nor the rescue list in its latest form.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha. Wow. Not the response I was expecting to this note. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
From me or Dream? Despite Dream's multi color peacenik signature, he may not have had his Wheaties this morning.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. From Dream. A bit too heavy with the persecution complex for my taste, even if I am able to, with effort, force myself to see where he's coming from :). Oh, lookee, the notorious RFC is live...and Dream Focus is apparently in a bad mood. Recommend heading for the hills with all possible haste. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Lol, that may be a good idea. The RfC's examples of vote-stacking include the lead-off punch of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film), closed as "keep. No one except the nominator advocates for the deletion of the article". And also, the one delete vote that did exist changed their mind AFTER I RESCUED THE ARTICLE.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment created

I have initiated the RfC. Be mindful that the discussion is focusing on the group, not editors, and strives to suggest reform.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  • You really did it, huh? Did you respond to Drmies pre-RFC comment somewhere? User_talk:The_Devil's_Advocate/RfC -- "Not that you care to hear my opinion (or anyone else's, I think), but if you want to file an RfC that has a remote chance of not getting laughed out of court, you might make this an RfC/U on Northamerica. The rest is just a bunch of baloney."--Milowent • hasspoken 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

AfDs No One Cares About

This is a great tool for looking for AfDs that need comment, User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention. There are many reasons why some AfDs these days seem unable to draw any commentary, but sometimes its because a subject may be notable but no one cares to examine it further, so they leave it alone.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know of the existence of that list, even though it's something that interests me greatly; it should be better publicized. This suggests adjusting my proposal above to point to this list, which is generated automatically, updating the guidelines so that they also mention this bot-generated list, and maybe creating a way to add discussions to the list by hand. This process would accomplish goals of the noticeboard that I suggested in my proposal. Diego (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't publicized the list widely yet because I don't think it's working as well as it should/could. Read my comments on User talk:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention for more details. If anyone has any input on how it could work better, I'd love to hear your thoughts (preferably on the aforementioned user talk page rather than here, as I don't check this page frequently). —SW— confer 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Big yellow box

I really do feel that, at least for the next few months as the ARS addresses perceptions and works to increase member participation in improving articles, the simple "Big Yellow Box" should remain as it was on the project page, quite brightly underscoring (for those members and non-members who think otherwise) that ARS is NOT about block voting or blind support, and is in fact about improving articles while under under the ticking clock.

Caution: Editors should not join the Article Rescue Squad with an expectation that by doing so others will "automatically" support their articles, nor are they expected to blindly support the work of others. That's NOT how it is expected to work here, nor is it the way by which to improve the project. You don't become an article rescuer by simply listing yourself on the membership roster--rescuing is about actually improving deficient articles through editing to provide needed sources and/or by cleaning up inappropriate style or tone. The point being, is if you don't improve articles, you aren't an article rescuer. Conversely, people who actually do perform article rescues are article rescuers no matter a membership here or not.

Is such temporary overkill neccessary? Do we need to pointedly stress what makes someone an article rescuer, or why someone is not? Considering comments at the still open RFC and perceptions outside this project, I believe that for the time being... yes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. When there is such intense scrutiny it is best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. By sending this message loud and clear, this project makes it clear what it is, and more importantly at the moment, what it is not. If we are serious about improving this project and its reputation it can only help to make this distinction right up front, and for it to be as obvious as possible, as this is essentially the core issue that has so damaged this project's reputation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I like and appreciate your words "loud and clear", "distinction right up front" and "obvious as possible". While instruction and clarification lie in other places on the project page, and editors may always read further to then learn the steps toward inprovement, I think it important to brightly and boldly make this statement as soon as possible lest there be any doubt of the ARS's goals. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not offended by the box, and I think good and accurate documentation in the project space is appropriate to instill common expectations in participants. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any point to it. People complaining aren't going to stop because of it. It doesn't change how people think or act at all. Dream Focus 01:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    It is intended to address perceptions that the ARS Project as a body may not have proper and well-stated goals. It does, and they are phrased further along on the page. Yes, it might not halt the complaints of certain long-time or long-term detractors, but it should make it clear that as a project, the ARS is aware of concerns, does not promote block voting, and instead promotes the improvement of articles while they are under the clock. Any long-term fix to address percieved issues cannot happen overnight... this is but a bold hatnote or caution... showing that the project is pointedly aware of how some others might mis-perceive it... and that it IS at least trying to address those perceptions. It is only a beginning, after all... and not intended to be permanent. And while it may not change individual behavior, it does much to move concerns toward those individual's behaviors and not toward the project itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What about the current version of this information that's in the lede section on the project's main page, without the big bright box? It's a toned-down version that doesn't overshadow the rest of the page. Here's the current version on the page, sans the box:


Actually, there aren't a great deal of the project's members actively participating at this time, and the style and tone of the box doesn't seem very congruent with encouraging people to join. The strong tone may actually deter people from joining. Also, not to be overly-critical, but the constant use of the second person singular pronoun “you” in the text is problematic, because Wikipedia is comprised of many editors (plural). (See related: WP:AVOIDYOU.) Lastly, the message is somewhat divisive, as in defining whether or not people are “article rescuers” based upon perceived or hypothetical actions. I disagree with inclusion of this portion as worded in the box, because defining editors per their actions, or per hypotheticals, is not part of the project's focus, and it reads like an ad hominem statement. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you modified and incorporated the big yellow box as a fouth paragraph in the lede, and that's commendable and thank you... but by doing so you took away its sense of priority. IE: The ARS is not about block voting at AFD. The bright yellow box was intended to (temporarily) underscore that point. As above, I suggested that the bright yellow box be temporary only... but by that I mean more than a few hours or days or weeks though less than six months. I feel it underscores a very important message... not one to which every member of the ARS must agree, if at least enough do so. Naturally the message is expanded in more detail further down the page... but the box acts as a bright and bold and more difficult-to-ignore "nutshell".
As offered, the yellow box is intended to catch a reader's attention far better than just a nutshell. The cautions in the box makes use of "you" singular, and not personalized in violation WP:AVOIDYOU or WP:ADHOM or WP:NPA, because far too often membership in the ARS is itself used as an ad hominem attack against that member (singular) and against the ARS project's members (plural) themselves, AND because editors visit and read the project page one at a time, rather than reading over each other's shoulders en masse. Simply put, if any editor comes to the ARS hoping that by joining he can then expect others to blindly support his articles, then the caution is for him. If an editor comes to ARS hoping that by joining, he will be expected to blindly support the work of others, the caution is addressed to him. And no... the ARS is not to be about defining individuals by their individual behavior. The bright box underscores this fact for those who are unsure and is intended to caution those with problematic editing habits without specifically singling them out individually. If an editor does not display such behavior, the box is not for them, and those with problematic behavior ignore its cautions at their own peril. The ARS is about improving content, and not about protecting individuals from their own actions. I see the box as inapplicable to any who actually improve articles... the whole reason why most of us joined in the first place... and if it discourages editors with problematic behavior from joning, then the ARS project is improved and we have fewer RFCs and ANIs in the future... RFCs and ANIs which ultimately become about the actions of individiual members and then blame the project itself because of those members. Addressing problematic behavior begins at home. The box is a proactive and visible first step. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The box does not bother me; I don't feel strongly about it either way. The RfC is not attracting that much attention, but we always have random people coming thru here making complaints once or twice a year who don't understand what ARS does. The box is not intended to admit that there are serious problems at ARS, if anything the RfC is confirming there are not. There will be problem cases from time to time, and we need to address those. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I like this. It does no harm, and potentially accomplishes some good. While Dream Focus is certainly correct in saying that the box likely won't change any behavior en masse, it should serve to give people pause before (ab)using the ARS' tools and membership, and it certainly clarifies the position of the organization as a whole as being in opposition to such behavior. One question, though: should this focus so exclusively on people joining the ARS out of a problematic expectation of a sympathetic voting block? What about what I perceive to be the more typically highlighted problem of people appealing to the ARS for help out of the same problematic expectation? Either way, I support this. I'd also happily copyedit it a bit to clean it up and make it shorter. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    Copyedit, please. But as I do not believe the notice will or should have extended life on the project page, I do think it important in its stressing to folks "appealing" to the ARS that they should not expect blind support, and that in reading futher down the page they can learn what to hope for and how they may help... in that if an article can be improved, project members can assist with such improvements. As a temporary notice, the big yellow caution should underscore, for the duration of its existance, that members should have no expectation or anticipation of blind support and that THAT is not what the ARS is about. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    How's about:

Caution: Editors should not join or appeal to the Article Rescue Squadron with the expectation that in doing so others will "automatically" support their articles, nor are they expected to blindly support the work of others. That's NOT how it should work here, nor is it any way to improve the project. Rescuing is about improving deficient articles by providing needed sources and/or cleaning up inappropriate style or tone.

Eh? Obviously I cut a big piece of it, but I think the salient points are all still there. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarification requested:
  • If consensus is to include a yellow box, it should specifically be decided how long the box should remain on the project's page in advance, to avoid misunderstandings.
  • It should be decided by consensus whether or not the text should remain in the lede of the project's main page after the duration of time for the box's inclusion on the page has expired, if consensus is to include the box.
Personally, I prefer the current version on the main page as of the time of this post, in which the information is part of the lede, sans the box. Furthermore, I think the information should remain in place as a part of the lede after the time duration for a box has expired, if it is decided that a box would be put in place for a determined amount of time. The information serves to further clarify how the project should function. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
While I agree the content you moved to the lede as a fourth paragraph on the project page should stay, I also believe that for the time being we keep that instructive bright yellow box, for the resaons stated further above. How about we keep the box for 90 days... 3 months... and in the meanwhile, we will also continue other work to help to define and strengthen the project's goals in response to that latest RFC, and to address its weak claim that the mere existance of project itself acts as canvassing. Any project discussing or encouraging article improvement on their talk page does NOT meet the description of such as the pertinant page, specially when the project page specifically states that block voting is not its wish nor goal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_56&oldid=1144418859"