Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

The Article Rescue Squadron has become an isolated, exclusive project, following much the same path to decline as Esperanza before it. Like Esperanza, ARS has a useful purpose on its face. Improving articles up for deletion is a good thing; in fact, I defended the project for that very reason at its last MFD. It is beyond repair because it has little productive use; this project is not necessary for this work to be done. Instead, the project has grown into exactly the thing people feared it would become: a hostile, exclusive group that does little to improve articles. Because of this, I propose its tools ({{rescue}}, {{ARS/Tagged}}) be deleted and the project page be marked historical.

The harm

Its attitude has become poisonous, increasingly portraying "deletionists" (with various euphemisms and an increasing scope of what deletionist means) as enemies of the project. Any suggestion that this project is being misused or isn't accomplishing anything is met with accusations that the speaker is a deletionist or opposed to improving articles at AFD.

Let me offer some examples of the attitude this project has engendered.

• You are a delitionists, someone who mindlessly tries to destroy things you don't like for whatever reason. Why are you even on this page? You naively believe you are helping the wikipedia by deleting articles that some would find interesting, which aren't hurting anyone by existing, and which no one would find unless they were searching for them to begin with. That sort of mentality is not compatible with what we are trying to do here. and ...we wouldn't have to work so hard to save articles, if people like him weren't trying so hard to destroy them, and to prevent a chance in the guidelines that would be fair and reasonable, to avoid most of the AFD altogether?
• Article Rescue Squadron is no different from any of the hundreds of wikiprojects, except for its scope. Some wikiprojects have a active delete agenda, you are welcome to search out these projects for support in your views.
• I think you're onto something. Deletionists of no special expertise hang out at "Articles for Deletion" because that function is in the name of AfD. But inclusionists of no special expertise have no 'Articles for Inclusion' to hang out at. That creates an imbalance of excess deletionism. Thus it's logical and beneficial for project neutrality to have a venue like Article Rescue Squadron for inclusionists of no special expertise.
• I think what is "perverse" and troubling ironic, is that the co-architect of many of the notabilty guidelines, which is the number one reason given for most of the deletions, is advising ARS on how ARS should or should not act. (Note that the "co-architect" here is Uncle G.)
• The posse mounted against this Wikiproject in short is alleging there is an inclusionist cabal run amok at ARS yet the proof of such remains woefully thin and mostly absent.
• Users with inclusionist and "users against notability" userboxes were mass-invited to the project, as here

Also, watch the response to this MFD. I expect to see some attacks on my person for this nomination, describing me as a "long-time critic" of the project. Watch the comments carefully, and note the tone of defensiveness, as though this project were under attack by outside enemies. Look at (disjointed and disorganized) archives to see how criticism from Fram, or myself, or Uncle G, or Masem, or Randomran has been responded to. This attitude of "They are out to get us and destroy the project, and we must be vigilant and defend against them" is exactly the poisonous attitude this project engenders.

The project's scope has steadily crept outward as well, with various people stating that all aspects of deletion are related to the project.

• In wikiprojects editors with certain interests work together to further the goals of the project, this includes discussing all aspects of deletion.
• The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.
• Ikip is to be commended for recognising that the sheer scale of deletionists efforts against worthy topic areas needs a collective responce, and ideally a change to policy. (Also note the distinction between "ARS members" and everyone else in the edit summary.)

An RFC was suggested to deal with these problems, but a combination of complete hostility from the project and repeated archival of the RFC proposal by involved editors has scuttled it. The arc of Fritzpoll's comments in that proto-RFC are particularly illustrative.

The lack of help

Now, the poisonous attitude and the scope creep are the harm. Conversely, the project just isn't doing any good. I'll let Uncle G's words explain this:

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

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

We seem to have a growing divergence between being an ARS "member" and being an actual, honest-to-goodness, article rescuer. And this divergence has been spurred on by the attempts of a few to turn the ARS into a battleground.

If this project isn't needed to rescue articles at AFD, what is it needed for?

In conclusion

I really do believe that, conceptually, this project is well-meaning in theory. Unfortunately, it is now well beyond repair. It has become the armed camp that people feared it would become, and now generates little more than policy evangelism and attempts to limit the policy evangelism. The remaining members of the project are hostile to any suggestion that the project has veered off course, to the point where any critic, regardless of editing history, is villified and rebuffed.

I want to see articles rescued. I cannot see this project in its current form doing anything to make that happen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and reform - there are problems, however disagree about being beyond repair. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reform them how? I would really like to see a functional project that improves articles for deletion, but I don't see how we can get from here to there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I hear what your saying. At the moment, the dominant attitude seems to be the problems don't exist. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Or often, more worryingly, that any suggestion that they exist is evidence of latent deletionism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
        • My personal concern, which makes taking some of these "criticisms" as valid as they seem one-sided and with no concern over obvious canvassing in support of deletion in rescue templated articles, such as [1] and [2]. If the same people were also taking issue with this kind of stuff. Okay. If the same people were also themselves doing impressive work rescuing articles. Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
          • That this project must exist to counteract the excesses of our opposition, that's exactly the harmful attitude I highlighted in the nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Totally ignoring, excusing, and/or glossing over the excesses of that opposition is what makes such "criticism" hard to take seriously. Here, it just looks like venue shopping. If you can't get what you want on the ARS talk page, you now simultaneously start an MfD of the project while conspiring against one of its most vocal defenders. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Any criticism of the project turns into criticism of the speaker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Only when the criticism is either hypocritical or in bad faith. I appreciate those who act in good faith as I said at User_talk:Fritzpoll#Regarding_this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • IMHO the squadron needs reform, and this would include rules on precisely what notifications are permitted, in addition to appointing coordinators to enforce these rules. I don't consider this to be either hypocritical, or in bad faith. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Reform, no, as with the contest idea, I am totally open to proactive ideas to improve the project. Outright deletion of the project, though? If the idea if because participants don't like criticism or its a poisonous atmosphere, then by that same logic we have justification for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, because certainly that has contentious talk page comments and closed mindedness by some to reform. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mark as historical. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of something kept multiple times due to overwhelming consensus as project has done considerable impressive work improving content when not faced with and distracted by these frivolous Xfds. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Any suggestion that there are problems is "disruptive". Any criticism is "distracting". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Renominating something that has been resoundingly kept multiple times is disruptive. Good faith criticism that can reasonable acted upon is welcome. Beating a dead horse or bad faith criticism that interferes with a project's ability to acheive its stated objective of rescuing articles by those who do not work to improve articles is distracting and hypocritical. I have multiple times now worked to steer discussion on proactive ideas to improve articles as seen at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Contest_2.3F. You seem to be taking disputes with some members and putting it on the whole group, which is not fair to the project as a whole. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Anyone who criticizes the project, either its conduct or its nature, must have some other agenda, like "disputes with some members". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Not anyone, but you clearly have disputes with some members. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mark as historical I frankly don't trust many of the main participants in this project. Looking over the talk page and this nominatin, AMiB seems to have it right. That canvassing example is really disturbing, and it doesn't look like the participants are willing to hear valid criticisms. AniMate^draw 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Performs a useful and valuable function. Artw (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There are things that people have sometimes done wrong both in trying to delete, or prevent the deletion, of articles. This does not mean that either purpose is hopelessly compromised, or that those concentrating on either of these purposes are harming Wikipedia. The bias of AfD towards deletion is so great--as long as one can nominate without any attempt at prior investigation it is immensely easier to nominate an article that is at the moment in a bad condition for deletion than to rescue it. Further, most articles nominated for deletion should indeed be deletes,and rescue attempts would be quixotic. It is thus reasonable for people to concentrate their efforts on those that can possibly be improved enough to be saved. since this project facilitates it, it acts to improve Wikipedia and realizes the principle that deletion is only the last resort. The proof of the usefulness of this project is the opposition; it must be doing a considerable amount of good. (smile) DGG (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is exactly the essentially sick attitude that this project has become infected with. "The bias of AfD towards deletion is so great" that this project must exist to counteract it? "The proof of the usefulness of this project is the opposition" because the only reason someone would be unhappy with it is because they are on the other side of some sort of great divide? DGG is an essentially reasonable, moderate editor, and this has affected even him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • that the process is biased towards deletions is correct, and will remain correct as long as 1/it is not required to actually search for sources before nominating an article and 2/ an article can be nominated more than twice. that is is difficult to improve articles on short notice is clear to everyone who has tried to do that. I can maqnage one a day at most--I could nominate 5 or ten times that, even with a little superficial searching. As for the last sentence, correct that to say that the repeated nomination is evidence that it must really be having an effect. If it were actually doing harm, it would have been stopped the first time. The persistence shows it touches a nerve. That I find AMIB, whom I consider a generally reasonable moderate editor, doing this surprised me exceedingly. If the issue is becoming this divisive, perhaps we need to reconsider the whole process--perhaps try a switch to some sort of impartial random jury system, even DGG (talk)
      • If AFD is broken, how is an insular, hostile project going to fix it? Previous MFDs addressed the ideal of this project, which has overwhelming support; this MFD addresses what the project has become, which does not accomplish its ideals. Esperanza was supposed to be a project to promote community in Wikipedians, which few would oppose, but it turned into an exclusive, separate group, hostile to outsiders. I still believe in the idea of a cleanup project that fixes articles up for deletion, but a project devoted to fighting bias (and by extension the biased editors) and rescuing things from the enemy isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator is constantly arguing with others, and recently Ikip started a motion to ban him from the Rescue Squadron. We have in fact improved plenty of articles, and don't just all vote keep. Dream Focus 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  that motion was probably not a good idea, neither as a practical matter, nor even in principle. Projects must remain open. If the project continues in that direction, I too will start thinking about closing it. DGG (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  "if you don't like it, then leave. Don't destroy it for the rest of us". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The project originally started out doing solid work at improving articles. It still is, but this hostile attitude needs to go. I recommend that the nominator step back and let them sort themselves out, the interactions between nominator and particular members of this project are part of the cause of this unfortunate mentality. Actions from both sides are painful to watch and will only serve to distract both parties from contributing to articles, and perhaps disengaging from each other may alleviate the symptoms. I also recommend that members of the ARS disengage from nominator as best they can and focus on improving articles. Please try not to incite this situation into yet another inclusion/deletion debate, and take utmost caution to avoid any actions that may lead to such situations. Focusing on improvement, following policy and being civil will demonstrate the project's intentions to contribute to Wikipedia, nothing else. It would be a loss to see this go. DDDtriple3 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Only Banjeboi's comment about the "posse mounted against this Wikiproject" is in direct response to me; everything is else from a wide variety of speakers, in response to a wide variety of speakers. It's a Catch-22; you're obsessive and disrupting the project if you stay and highlight the project's essentially combative nature and lack of utility, but if you go away, anything you posted is quickly archived and forgotten. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I think that AMiB has been fighting with a small portion of the ARS community who may or may not represent the whole. Personally, I became so sick of reading the extremely large pages of controversy and trying to get my opinion in (without being heard) that I stopped paying attention and went back to working on saving articles which are able to be saved (and not voting in AfD unless my vote is delete). I'm a deletionist and a member of ARS which I have openly stated many times. I don't come to ARS and look for help (or canvass) to "save" unsavable articles with a vote in AfD. There are people in this project who are doing what the project is allowed to do and it's offensive and asinine to say that everyone in the project is some wide-eyed inclusionist that wants to keep articles despite the best interests of Wikipedia. For the people involved in the diffs you brought up, discuss the problems you have with them personally or even in a RfC in AWAY from ARS. If they're doing something that ARS states is wrong on its project page, then isn't the problem with those people and not the project itself? AMiB brings up some good points which have already been brought up and addressed in the past (see the "What ARS is" and "What ARS isn't") His only conclusion, when a user misunderstands the project and allegedly canvasses at ARS, is to shut down the whole project. I just don't understand the line of thought unless AMiB seriously believes that every single person in the project has the exact same idea about what "saving an article" means. I'm so sick of being called some variation of a super-defensive, wide-eyed inclusionist. If/when anyone comes up with a way to address the problems that users who abuse ARS present, I'll be happy to talk about it. Straight up deletion is asinine. OlYeller^Talktome 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Because the project will continually attract that kind of fighting. You could ban every single person who has ever talked on that talk page forever and oversight the entire thing, archives and all, and we'd be back in the same place before long. The project is broken to its core. The project's tools, its talk page and templates, are used more for fighting a perceived bias at AFD than for improving articles, and indeed the good work of improving articles at AFD happens in spite of the project, not because of it.

  Nobody's arguing that ARS is all wide-eyed inclusionists. Instead, the argument is that it has been co-opted by people who are more interested in fighting about article inclusion and defending Wikipedia from their enemies than doing anything productive, and the response to any criticism of this hostility is more hostility. Canvassing is only a symptom of this; the righteous defense and hostility is the real problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  As an example, ARS states what ARS is not on its project page the same way that WP:NOT states what Wikipedia is not. If people are misunderstand what Wikipedia is, do we shut down Wikipedia? OlYeller^Talktome 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  One more thing. I would be more inclined to believe that the project had some serious issues if there were diffs provided to show that the {{rescue}} tag was added to an unsavable article or there was canvassing for an unsavable article where vote stacking occurred. There's been evidence to show that there are possibly problems with a few members but not much evidence that there's a problem with the project itself. I understand that a project is greatly defined by its members but the way to fix each problem are very different. OlYeller^Talktome 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  You're demanding proof for a claim I'm not making here. The project is hostile and insular and accomplishes no good that couldn't be done without it. Next to that, little back-and-forths over a bit of canvassing are relatively minor. If Wikipedia as a whole were allowed to become this uncivil and insular and hostile, it would probably be time to shut it down, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm asking for proof because the conclusion is different in each case. If the problem is with people, like you've pointed out, then isn't the answer to address those people? OlYeller^Talktome 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  So what about people like me? I spend 70% of my time sitting in CSD looking for articles that can be saved and saving them. I'm sure there are plenty of people in ARS who, like me, actually save articles. Before you say that ARS isn't for CSD, I know. My goal in the future is to somehow incorporate savable articles up for speedy deletion into ARS's scope. OlYeller^Talktome 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  What do people like you get out of this project? You use CSD to catch articles that need immediate help, and many users look through AFD to find things that could use a little love. We already have tools for aggregating all of the articles that need some help or else they'll be deleted. That's what AFD and CSD and such have always been for.

  On the other hand, how would you propose that every problematic comment on WT:ARS be dealt with? It's not one instigator, and the culture is one of a persecuted minority, out to protect their own from individual attack or attack as a whole. I use the term "righteous defense" above because this has become a cause of its own, and doesn't really have anything to do with inclusionism or deletionism any more. Those are just handy labels for "us" and "them", and have mostly been replaced with "ARS members" and "ARS critics" anyway. Sometimes the canvassing/notification/llama/whatever was out of bounds, sometimes it was appropriate; what's more important is the project's toxic culture and how these discussions have exposed it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  If there's a "toxic culture," it is because of such discussions as these, which have invented rather more than exposed anything. If members were able to spend more time improving articles than having to play games in XfD after XfD against them, much more worthwhile would be accomplished. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  There's no problem. The only problem is that anyone thinks there's a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) OK, I see your point about us/them and I do feel that there are people who get very defensive to perceived hostile outsiders. I don't however, think that it's grounds for shutting down the project.

The reason I believe that this project is warranted, aside from just have a portal like what I watch at CSD, is that some article could use small tweaks during its trial (I can't think of a better word than trial atm). For instance, I could look through every AfD and read every article on my own, do the research to see if the article is savable then attempt to save the article while its deletion is being discussed. What ARS does (or at least should do) is be a place where I can go through AfDs, read the article, decide what I think can be saved then tag it so that others don't have to go through all the articles and AfD and do the same work that I already did. So while I (as a hypothetical ARSer) haven't actually edited the article to save it, I've done work that others won't have to do (reading through AFDs to find savable articles). Otherwise, I can watch the {{rescue}} tag portal to see what articles in AfD are savable. While the person just tags articles may not seem like they're doing any real work to save articles, they are helping by saving time for those who actually make the edits.

Some articles are the most complete they can be and an AfD is simply a discussion on the interpretation of inclusion guidelines while other articles are seemingly broken and brought to AfD when they just need a little work to "save" from deletion. ARS is, in my mind, for signaling to other editors that, "Hey, this article is in AfD and only needs a little work to save. I've saved you some time by reading articles for you so we don't all have to read every article." Besides the fact that not every article in AFD can be changed to save it from deletion, I don't believe that AFD is for cleanup so just the AFD tag on an article doesn't show that it needs a little work in any way. Sorry for the long response. OlYeller^Talktome 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But what's the standard? If you haven't done any research and don't know anything about the topic, how can you know whether it can be improved or not? If you have done the research or do know about the topic, why not just use that research or knowledge to improve the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard is how any editor interprets the inclusion guidelines for articles. They're obviously up for interpretation but not a whole lot. If a person's standards are way off base (incorrectly tags articles), then they need to be dealt with on an individual basis instead of saying that all of ARS is broken. Even if someone has done the research or knows about the topic, they may not have time to make the edits. Personally, I make those edits because I try to be thorough but others may not have the time or desire. Even if they don't have the time or desire, letting others know that they think the article can be saved is useful, not matter how little that usefulness may be. OlYeller^Talktome 03:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not about canvassing. It is not about canvassing. If one or two editors are misusing the tools, how can anything ever be done? Any criticism will meet a wall of "Some wikiprojects have a active delete agenda, you are welcome to search out these projects for support in your views." The culture is so broken that there's no hope of productive discussion in the event of any sort of dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My last response didn't say it was about canvassing. You asked what the standard was and I responded. I mentioned incorrectly tagging as a reference for when people misunderstand/misinterpret the standard. Again, you've lumped everyone in ARS into your perception of a few people. Again, you have lumped everyone in ARS into your perception of a few people. We're talking in circles and you haven't addressed the fact that you paint everyone in ARS with the same brush or the fact that I addressed every issue you brought up in response to my comment. I'm getting back to saving articles. Anyone who reads this can think what they want. Respond to your hearts content but I'm taking this page off my watch list. OlYeller^Talktome 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a disruptive nomination. If people are working with good faith in the project, let it be. If it is annoying you, find some other more harmonious area to contribute, this is a pretty big project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the nominator paints 246 active members with the same brush he's using and referencing about 2 or 3 with which he has disagreements. The few editors with which the nominator has issues are not representative of the over 240 other members who themselves strive to improve the project. It makes absolutely no common sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change the water if you must, but keep the baby. As a member who strives to improve articles, I do not see its work as "non-productive" and see the term "poisonous" as being perjorative to myself and the 240+ others engaged in improving the project through the ARS... including those few members who seem to delete articles rather than improve them. Acting to disband the worthy efforts of the ARS because of perceived problems with a few is not the solution. I do not care if the nominator is a critic of the project or a critic of certain members. In reading his "examples" above, I see this nomination that affects so many is based upon his negative interactions with a few, and as such is not worthy of Wikpedia. If AMIB is not happy with the ARS, he is welcome to rescind his own membership (if he hasn'y already done so), as there are several million articles where his skills in editing articles may be of terrific service even without his membership in the ARS. In reading his nomination above and his references to the ARS as "beyond repair", "the thing people feared", "hostile, exclusive group", "poisonous", "poisonous attitude", "armed camp", and "evangelism" as particularly charged... attacking the entire ARS when the histories show his conflicts are with only a few members. And in his responses to the keep opinions, "I don't see how we can get from here to there" seems to indicate that no answer will suffice if it does not support his nomination. "Any suggestion that they exist is evidence of latent deletionism" speaks toward his interactions with certain editors and not the project as a whole. "Essentially sick attitude that this project has become infected with" (ending the sentence with a preposition aside) Again denigrates all becasuse of perceived actions of a few. References to the Esperanza decentralization of January 2007 almost feels like an example of other things no longer exist as justification to delete the ARS. Just as the nominator warns "watch the response to this MFD. I expect to see some attacks on my person for this nomination", he "warns" to watch out for defense being made personal even as he is using the negative examples of a very few as justification to vilify the entire ARS. Nope. Not the way to fix something that he perceives is broken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  "If AMIB is not happy with the ARS, he is welcome to rescind his own membership (if he hasn'y already done so), as there are several million articles where his skills in editing articles may be of terrific service even without his membership in the ARS."

  Who doesn't have this love-it-or-leave-it attitude? It's not one or two wholly obnoxious users; it's an undercurrent of insular hostility that pervades the project.

  And if it's just a few users, why are they allowed to manage the talk page? Why are they writing the FAQ? Where's the rejection of this hostile attitude? You're right. I'm lumping the actively hostile editors and the editors who tacitly accept this hostility together, because the project's culture is so damaged that it has ceased to police itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  If one believes a house has termites, it is wiser to go after the termites rather than burn down the entire stucture. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  What is needed is a coordinator, who can counsel members who are misguided, and if necessary suspend their membership. However, attempts to discuss this on the squadron talk page have been unsuccessful. In fact, discussion over setting up an RfC has even run into the ground. In this context, I think a MfD was to be expected. PhilKnight (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Looking at WP:AFD, I don't see this group as doing any harm. If there is acrimony on the talk page, there ought to be a better way to resolve the problems than closing down the project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Send to RfC, as a subpage there and advertised per WP:Advertising discussions. File individual user RfCs as necessary, sticking to normal certification procedures. I support further community discussion, and I have indicated that in several brief comments at WT:Article Rescue Squadron. The structure of RfC (separate statements, no threaded discussion on the main page) will help focus discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. I'd agree with AMiB that attempting to illustrate any problems of the ARS has effectively become worthless, largely due to the current ARS members' inability to consider any sort of criticism. It's incredibly disturbing that so many members of the ARS who joined at its founding have appeared on the talk page of the project indicating that the direction it is taking is blatantly wrong, and the current members have 1) refused to listen to any criticism 2) gone around dismissing arguments out of hand now 3) simply archiving discussions despite being involved. Uncle G's comments that AMiB have quoted are very pertinent. Deletion would be nice, but I would force a widely advertised RfC first, whether the ARS wants it or not. If the RfC demands changes of the ARS and it doesn't respond, then we go back to MfD and delete it as a last resort. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• And for good measure, we now have this gem from ArbCom (which is going to pass obviously) that the ARS needs to address. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Start an RfC on the workings of the talk page and on the group of overprotective editors dismissing all issues the ARS has (and if you want to know who these editors are in my view: mainly Ikip and Benjiboi, and to a lesser degree A Nobody, Dream Focus, and MichaelQSchmidt. I can imagine that A Man in Black and myself would also fall under this RfC as possible cause of the problems. An RfC has been proposed on the talk page but dismissed by those editors and archived over the weekend. Alternatively, Keep the project and the rescue tag but blank and salt all project talk pages, this would solve all the problems without changing anything for the actively rescuing members, apart from the handful mentioned above. Fram (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We should start an RfC on admin critics of the project who make next to no effort to help improve article content but do make delete closes of rescued templated AFDs against consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Give names of who you mean or shut up, please. Fram (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Discussions that should more correctly have been closed as no consensus, but were closed instead as delete due to personal preference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time magazine top 100, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talos (Resident Evil), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of advertising slogans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Pickles (3nd nomination), etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah, me. If you think I make "next to no effort to help improve article content", you are wrong. As for the AfD's listed: none has been reverted or even recreated, even though some of them are two years old. If there would be an indication that I regularly closed AfD's incorrectly by a string of succesful DRV's, you may have had a point. None of these were though. One was overturned by myself, after a request to do so by you, because the nominator as an abusive sockpuppet. The implication that I would single out rescue tagged articles for deletion is incorrect as well. Some of those you listed were not even tagged for rescue either. But it is reassuring that you only need two minutes to produce a list of AfD closures of years back where you disagreed with my closure without in many cases taking it up with me or taking it to DRV. Anyway, feel free to start such an RfC. Fram (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I and others have challenged some of these closes on your talk page (a few editors criticized that Eve Online spaceship one for example) as they clearly had no consensus and the closes read more like an opinion that could have been left as a comment in the discussion rather than accurate reads of the discussions, but I have transwikied many of them preemptively, so it's not as if the content is totally last anyway, but rather than get side-tracked and which is why I perhaps took the bait in your comment, what makes it hard to take these sorts of attacks on the project as sincere or unbiased is when I see things like your lumping a number of us editors together above with the implications in the comment "the actively rescuing members, apart from the handful mentioned above", which is a flat out insult to Michael and I in particular, who whether you are persuaded by our sourcing or not, nevertheless actively work to rescue articles. I frequently go through the list of templated articles and even if I cannot find sources at least do minor grammar or spacing fixes. I certainly don't make it a point to copy and paste say to keep in every rescue templated AfD (I avoid commenting in AfDs anymore unless I think it absolutely needed) and I have actually even argued to delete in rescue templated AfDs. So, yes, I am opposed to distracting criticism that comes off in an unfriendly manner, but to make some kind of suggestion that Michael who I would say surpasses me in his efforts to find and actually add sources to articles and I somehow aren't members actually rescuing the articles is again simply insulting and unwarranted and makes it incredibly difficult if that is how you actually perceive things to then view any criticisms as justifiable. As far as calling for an RFC on the group (and which is why I don't start RFC on people myself), that, like the MfD would be just more time in which editors spend time doing something other than actually working to improve articles, which I thought is what we are supposed to be here for. Good faith and constructive criticism is fine. Insulting members who actually do work to improve the articles under discussion is not. And when the criticism by a handful of accounts gets so fixated that it gets in the way of the project's efforts to improve article, then that is where I oppose it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
            • You misinterpreted "without changing anything for the actively rescuing members, apart from the handful mentioned above." It would only change something for the small group of rescuers who are also very active on the ARS talk page, but would change nothing for the other members. I did not say (and did not mean to imply) that the "handful mentioned above" are not among the "actively rescuing members". If I say "stricter controls on budget spending would changing nothing for the members of parliament, apart from those abusing the system", then I don't say that those abusing the system are not members of parliament. Fram (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Again, you insult me in that post, because in a couple of instances I asked for attention not to be lost on the article rescuing in all these blocks of text from the same handful of accounts as critcisms. I am not participating in the edit-warring on the Faq page and aside from a few quick comments, am avoiding going back and forth in the massive threads. I am here, because I absolutely find renominations of things previously speedily kept disruptive. As for the talk page, yes, there are unconstructive discussions on the talk page that we could do without, but also good faith proposals, such as Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Some_proposals and Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Contest_2.3F, for example, which are intended to encourage editors to help improve articles and to be blunt I don't appreciate this aspersion of being lumped together as if my comments on the talk page are discouraging criticisms and unwelcome when I am an active contributor to trying to improve articles tagged by the project and when threads that I start on the talk page are meant to decrease tensions and help build articles. Some of the suggestions on that talk page do come off as good faith suggestions and those are met relatively positively; but others however come off all high and mighty like and yes, some as biased, and these are not met well. A project is and should be open to advice and ideas, but not impositions and not being talked down to. Anyway, in my "speedy keep" argument above, I didn't make it a point to call you out as a critic of the project, so I see your comment in your post where I get mentioned and it's like WTH?! In any event, I will never get why so much time is spent in XfDs and on various talk pages rather than improving articles. I cannot believe how much time and effort is misplaced on this site. Just think of how many improved articles we would have if we weren't having to go back and forth on all these talks pages. Personally, I downright despise having to comment in these discussions; I would greatly prefer improving articles, but feel compelled to comment, because, well, my back is hurting and I am tired, so, probably too agitated to say more now anyway. Good night. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
                • If my opinion of your actions on the ARS talk page insults you, so be it. You have been commenting a lot on the talk page, not adressing any of the perceived problems, but not wanting an RfC on any of them either. This indicates to me that you either didn't agree that there are problems, or didn't want them to be solved, hence my reason for including you. And the fact thatyou did or did not mention me has nothing to do with me mentioning you, I don't thin or act in such a retaliatory fashion, I try to be honest, and when I am indicating that I have problems with a numer of editors' actions on one particular page, it is no more than logical than that I name these individuals. Otherwise it is all empty handwaving. Then again, claiming that I "make next to no effort to help improve article content" falls squarely in that category as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have bothered naming anyone, since that is obviously not expected. It is apparently better to insult people without naming them than to be clear and open. I'll try to remember that... Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• RfC rather than outright deletion. I don't think anybody would disagree that improving articles that are listed in a deletion discussion is a Good Thing. However, given the dismissive/combative attitude shown to anyone who has the temerity to show any concern over the way the ARS operates, (see Rfc discussion on ARS talk page) it is clear that comment is required from a wider audience. pablo_hablo. 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • @A Nobody - not here, you shouldn't. pablo_hablo. 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and consider a RFC against nominator for disruption, hounding, disruption, and continued abuse of administrative powers. This AFD is simply the latest disruptive tactic of an editor who acts more like a edit warrior than an administrator.

• In the past 12 days AMIB has been in 4 edit wars over the ARS page. Despite three 3RR warnings on his talk page he refuses to stop.
• This is from an administrator who has been blocked 12 times for edit warring, more blocks than any other admistrator has had. the last block was for one week.
• The nominator has unilaterally deleted templates of ARS.
• The nomniator has called editors trolls on the ARS page.
• On a personal note, the nominator has created templates against me.
• The nominator has hounded me with ongoing threats on his talk page.
• The nominator abused his administrative authority by blocking me. not for breaking the rules, but for "push[ing] the boundaries" of the rules
• The nominator has lied repeatedly and refused to refute those lies. He claimed I was attempting to boot someone when I was clearly not, and claimed that he is an univolved adminstrator.
• This AFD is AMIB latest disruptive tactic. Ikip (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)