Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Main page

Content rescue list

Articles & content

Rescue guide

Newsletter

Awards

Members

Talk page

Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.

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)

Y 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

• Note – The result of the discussion was: split. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Death of AfD?

• Can anyone point me to any real stats to see if AfD participation has significantly waned over the past 2 years or so? My subjective opinion could be wrong, but when I run into twice-relisted AfDs that had yet to garner a single !vote, like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nasrullah_Medqalchi, I start to wonder. And recently there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panselinos (TV Series) which was relisted twice and still got no votes, was closed as no consensus, has since been renominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panselinos (TV Series) (2nd nomination) with continued silence. If there are no stats, I wonder if there is a way to come up with some (Scotty?).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Wikipedia:Improving AFD debates (December 2011).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• New User Participation in Deletion Processes (2011).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:23, 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)

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)

• The deletion review discussion for the Rescue template closed as "Deletion endorsed." Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 8 February 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): Template:Rescue cleanup  — posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The result of the discussion was to delete the {{Rescue cleanup}} template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 7 February 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)
  • We've had these sorts of problems for years. See Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion for some additional background. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:21, 6 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)

• Ha, nevermind--I found Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. That's a real short list, and it's handmade, no? I hope you have enough folks interested in doing upkeep on it. Good luck, 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)

ANI

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

• I moved this from the rescue list page. The ANI is already closed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Here's the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive738#Article Rescue Squadron again. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow... Some people just can't let something go...

• User talk:Drmies#ANI thread closure (permlink) (diffs: [1] [2] [3])
• User talk:Salvio giuliano#ANI closure (permlink) (diffs: [4] [5])

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)

• Perhaps consider joining the WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron; all are welcome to join! Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:11, 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

• The Deletion discussion has been RE-OPENED for the ARS Rescue list at Miscellany for deletion.
  

(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)

• The result of the discussion was Speedy keep (again). Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

• A Deletion review is now occurring regarding the ARS 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:

• Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list#Regular deletion only? What about speed deletes, prods for deletion, or redirects?
• Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list – Posting to the ARS Rescue list

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

Deleted Template Historical Treatment Discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:Rescue and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#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)

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)

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)

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)

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)