Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in: James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists". Wall Street Journal. Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Wikipedia". New York Review of Books.

Template:Multidel

 Main page Rescue list Content menus Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Awards Talk page 

For articles listed for rescue consideration, see Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list

There are currently 390 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please refer to tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.

Note: To ensure the most recent listings in the pull-down menus below are displayed, click here:

Articles

Articles currently tagged for deletion

• Main page: Category: Articles for deletion

Articles currently proposed for deletion

• Main page: Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) Notability. Alleged WP:COI. Acerbic discussion. Counting merger discussions, a previous deletion, etc., looks closer to a 4th nomination. Sourcing was poorly done. I've fixed references and links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

• Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron - Biographies of living persons
• Article Rescue Squadron – BLP rescue volunteers

Articles with topics of unclear notability

• Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability – lists topics that are unclear regarding their notability.

Content

Files for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Files for discussion
  

Categories for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Templates for discussion
  

Redirects for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion

Stub types for deletion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion

Stub categories for deletion
Category Category:Stub categories for deletion not found

Miscellany for deletion

• Main pages: Wikipedia: Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion

Article alerts

• Main page: Wikipedia: Article alerts

Article alerts for ARS
The Article alerts for this page are no longer delivered, because this project does not employ a banner or category that the bot can use to find relevant articles.

Recognition of efforts

Barnstars project

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC) I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles. For example: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Past successful deletion debates I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion. RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories. I already checked all of the AfDs involving WP:NALBUMS, WP:NSONGS, which is on User:Inclusionist/Del. But would like more specific success stories travb (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New idea to recognize efforts

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see and help with User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame, which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because Its about the articles, not the editors Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamal talk 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself): From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be? And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With John W. Rogers, Jr. yesterday being promoted to Good Article, and counting Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch, I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to WP:GA-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC) And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Example

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2 (Talk | email) 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of embattled users

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages: ==Welcome== Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me. Need help? If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you have any questions at all, please [message me]. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) {{Subst:User:Ikip/t}} The template signs your name for you. It is part of: Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) {{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}} Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Medals

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame, the coding is here: {{ARS|ArticleTitle}} You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (Inspired by User:Piotrus/Top which is hanging above his talk page). Ikip (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ARS tools and possible tools discussion

AFD summaries

A dust-covered AfD tool that categorized open AfDs by a number of parameters; very useful for "ARS Search and rescue" possibilities
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidates for Speed Deletion

CSD and rescue tag discussion; possible food for thought for "search and rescue" at CSD and Prods
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYellerTalktome 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter[1]. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC) OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYellerTalktome 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go to make an alert?

ARS and Prods.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet. Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject. Vulture19 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC) In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYellerTalktome 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablohablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC) While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYellerTalktome 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC) In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

{{findsourcesnotice}}

Hi ARS. I created {{findsourcesnotice}} as a way editors can quickly tag non-ARS talk pages to suggest where those interested in the article may find reilable source material for the article. -- Suntag ☼ 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page

{{ARS/Tagged}}
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page: Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}} This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatically adding references to articles

A cite tool to help when adding refs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted. I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: User:Ikip/ref it is really easy to install. Ikip (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some kudos for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ARS project development

Wikiads

Banner ad for ARS
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See: Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I am going to try and build one of these also in the next week. Ikip (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Newsletter ideas
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples: Category:WikiProject Films newsletters Category:WikiProject Cats newsletters Category:WikiProject Hawaii newsletters Category:WikiProject Biography newsletters Category:WikiProject India newsletters Category:WikiProject Led Zeppelin newsletters Category:WikiProject The Beatles newsletters Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter ...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I like your how to rescue page idea. I have started one here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/How to I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter is the best bet. Ikip (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mottos

Motto ideas, collapsing thread to be mined for when Wikiad effort ensues.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project? “ ...Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy... ” — Barack Obama, President of the United States of America TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Wikipedia editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jack Merridew 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery; “ To Divide and Conquer ” Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stricken. Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?: “ Don't point a finger, lend a hand ” It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. (Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.) Simple and direct are both good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. — Winston S. Churchill I like that one. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again: “ Some things can be fixed ” Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC) How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. Fram (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) You know what I've been considering to be our motto? “ Don't count on us. ” The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --Kizor 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Lol! Luv it. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Word, I like this one. OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC) For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) “ We'd rather fix the damn pipes than complain about having wet feet ”

WP:PRESERVE

Collapsed for navigation. This is excellent material on policies on preserving content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments: WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing... Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.) Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort Wikipedia:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content." Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template

The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves.

I think it would be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes before launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• A Nobody had a similar welcome template that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes seems a good resource. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ikip is around now. I agree that specific help pages dealing with the deletion process would be nice. I think a large part of it, though, is that there is no punishment for overly aggressive people who nominate weak pages left and right, even article stubs that were just created. It's frustrating dealing with such aggressive deletionists; if they fail consensus on AfD, they don't actually lose anything and will simply try again later. Deletionism is a widely accepted philosophy, so they can't be accused of acting in bad faith either. -moritheil^Talk 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I already wrote User:Ikip/Del which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.

I also regularly post messages to new editors with promosing articles, for example: User_talk:Otomo#An_article_you_created_maybe_deleted_soon:_Tools_which_can_help_you

I remember Ben said that we need some way to review all of the articles which are put up for deletion. That is what I try to do everyday. I would like to create a web scrapper which takes all of the articles on WP:AFDT and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally find an auto message very annoying. Anyone doing a lot of rescue work would get a lot of spam. The constructive recommended steps for article development are a great idea, however. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather not have an opt out for a couple of reasons. We can condense the content into drop-down format - "Click here for details" - thus mitigating issues of talkpage space. If someone gets ten in a row it still won't be that horrid. This bot is to present any up-to-date resources so even if someone didn't want one currently they easily may in the future but reality is that people opt out and rarely re-opt back in. I also see this as helping note if the tag is being "abused", that is if someone is misapplying the tag and they get multiple messages at least we'll have a record of that without having to investigate each AfD to confirm. In short the hassle of getting multiple messages can be somewhat addressed and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion of interest.

“ Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measure (e.g., merging) is not appropriate. ”

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deletion_is_to_be_a_last_resort In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.

But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? Ikip (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? -- Banjeboi 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we back-burner this for future AfD proposals or archive. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?

Collapsing for navigation. There does seem to be overwhelming support for this proposal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many people believe we need a bot that does the following: Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by: The bot reads the AFD today page a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list. The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (this tool already exists, also), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later. Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, "don't send me any automatic messages like this again" list, removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages. Support Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. Dream Focus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on WP:VPT if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support, does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support - couldn't hurt, although an article articles with various tags on it them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. Radiopathy •talk• 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Does not concern the ARS - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --Kizor 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Sounds like an offer of resignation after the James Burns orchestra is no more... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Not related to the function or goal of ARS But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Comment, query I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? pablohablo. 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? Ikip (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) "Why not?" support Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) support No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article. Support - What Jclemens said. OlYellerTalktome 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Strong support as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. Dream Focus 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC) They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Support surprised it doesn't exist yet Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Support anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC) My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at perennial proposals as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC) It states the answer right there: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. This is somewhat addressed by my comment - This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors. Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NAME&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1 For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article+Rescue+Squadron&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1 I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.Ikip (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Qualified Support, I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Support as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Bot has already been made and approved Found it: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jayden54Bot "This bot will automatically notify article authors when "their" article is up for deletion in an Article for Deletion discussion." User:Jayden54Bot bot created and approved in January 2007. More details: User:Jayden54Bot/AFDNotify Opt out coding: User:Jayden54Bot/ignore.js Currently not active, Bot was deactivated by the request of the creator, because he was "taking a very long wiki-break"[2] Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.[3] "I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task"[4] So no one has the coding for this bot. Past comments on this same idea, other bots Bot requests page: AfD Notification bot "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated" 01:11, 27 November 2006: Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_8#AfD_alert_bot, created Jayden54Bot Our suggestion (short): Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_14#AfD_notification_bot, Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_21#Afd_notification 09:26, 29 September 2007: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_43#Notification_as_part_of_deletion_process Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC) ...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC) A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Other bots User:Jayden54/WPDead Source.js Ikip (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close bot discussion

Seems there is overwhelming support to try this and various past bots have also been created along these lines. Obviously this may have to wait a bit but I'd like to close and compact this one as it seems to have winded down a bit. If no one else wants to address this i will but it will have to wait a few.

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Most abused acronyms in an AfD

I have thought a lot about this list, and am finally putting it down in print, what would you add to this list and why? Is my numbering correct?

1. WP:IINFO WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This section names: "Plot summaries" "Lyrics databases" "Statistics" and "News reports", but editors often quote it for any list.
2. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E "People notable only for one event". Used for any event, no matter how signifigant.

Ikip (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for WP:BLP1E, see my recent update to WP:OUTCOMES. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. After it'd been discussed elsewhere and in place for several days, one post here and it gets reverted[5] without meaningful comment within 10 minutes of this post. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a closely watched page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but I would presume that WT:BLP is both more relevant and more closely watched than here, which is where the discussion actually took place. Something's wrong if describing a new consensus on an unrelated page immediately results in a reversion without discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh. It was reverted by Fritzpoll, who barely edited in the intervening two days. Plus, FP is active on BLP topics, but to my knowledge has never edited this talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those are acronyms except for BLP1E, hehe.

On a more serious note, cruft is almost always used exactly the way it means, but bear in mind that if you're arguing that the level of detail is excessive you're going to at least be able to justify that claim if challenged. If not, well, making conclusions you can't support is blowing hot air.

As for WP:BLP1E, be very careful about this, but you can almost always rewrite the article, disposing of the affectation of a biography. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, and after AMIB comments, I removed WP:Synth and WP:CRUFT. I still think that WP:IINFO is really abused though...Ikip (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AMiB, if you're going to be pedantic, BLP1E isn't an acronym either. It's an initialism. Ha! yandman 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack! Hoist by my own petard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1Es the one I encounter most frequently. They use all sorts, Some seem to grasp at the first policy that comes into their heads. When you look at the wording its clearly inapplicable , and it can be so obvious you feel almost like you’re insulting them to point it out. Grrrrrr! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean: WP:BLP1E? Ikip (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep thats the one. I dont yet have a seasoned ARS campaigners precision of expression :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The sad fact is that all Wikipedians use these initialisms as a crutch, some much more than others. My advice is to always be able to explain the policy or guideline in your own words before you use it, so that if challenged you can successfully defend its relevance. (And this might be a way to discourage their abuse -- get the other party to explain how a given acronym/initialism applies.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been toying with a way of making templates, that instead of typing WP:BLP1E, you would type: {{WP:BLP1E}} and the name of the policy would be listed fully, with a link to the page. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I turned it on but my browser does that for me. If I mouse over any internal link, it shows me the first few lines (including the full title) or the page the link points to. It's very useful. OlYeller^Talktome 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Is this all regarding the common outcomes page or something else? -- Banjeboi 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not regarding the common outcomes page. I just posted my ideas, and Jclemens then mentioned the outcomes page. Ikip (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOTPAPER (not an acronym) is often cited as a blanket policy to justify any article, despite saying "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" pablo_hablo. 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• On WP:IINFO, while that section names a few examples, the page does point out earlier that "[t]he examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see WP:BEANS". Just because it's not specifically mentioned doesn't mean it's indiscriminate, although some analysis of what is and isn't indiscriminate is overdue. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This seems somewhat useful info but I'm unsure where it could be directed to? Arguments to avoid or ? -- Banjeboi 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• How about Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information? Stifle (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Right tea and biscuits and let's have a calm chat

Lengthy discussion collapsed for navigation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi there - I've been watching this page actively for the past few days and I think the above discussion and the past few edits to this page indicate that tempers are flaring and that there is an ongoing dispute. Now, I am not a member of the ARS, so I apologise in advance if my intervention is unwelcome, but perhaps a third-opinion would be useful here? Looking back over the past few months, there seems to be a conflict based on some misunderstandings (as ever) mixed with some genuine concerns. The common thread to many of the discussions is a question: what is the ARS for? And the conflicts arise when there is an apparent difference between what the project page says and what the ARS is doing. The page says, in crude terms, that the project goes and tries to source and cleanup articles that are at AfD in an effort to rescue useful content. I think it would be impossible for any editor to argue that rescuing useful, good content is a bad thing (although we may all vary in our definition of "good" and "useful"). In recent times, the project has expanded with proposals for handling all XfDs, being actively involved as a group in examining policy/guideline alterations that affect arguments at XfD, etc. This is where a lot of conflict lies, because it doesn't coincide with the stated goals of the ARS. I think there is a resolution in two parts: Realisation, acceptance and acknowledgement on both sides that the ARS is a WikiProject working in a sensitive area working in a position mandated by, and for the benefit of, the community at large (just like any WikiProject) A community-wide RfC on the scope of the ARS. That is an RfC, not a binding poll, so don't worry about votestacking, or anything. Have an RfC outlining what the ARS should do in addition to its original aim of cleaning up articles that are at AfD. By having an RfC for a good few weeks and getting a neutral administrator (I can give you some names of very good admins to do this for you) to evaluate the WP:CONSENSUS you get a series of codified aims and a clear scope. And then all the subsequent disputes are moot provided you stick to that scope, because the ARS would have a mandate from the community that you can always point to. It limits the disruption, and you guys can get back to working on the articles that require cleanup rather than having to bicker here. Now, I obviously think that this is a good way forward - what is happening now, where there is an endless tug of war, where the only solutions to the dispute being put forward are topic bans, blocks and the like, is not sustainable. I am willing to help set up an RfC with you if I am wanted (not essential) - make sure it is neutrally worded so there can be no accusations of bias. In turn, both sides may have to accept that the community wants/doesn't want things you don't agree with. But at the end of the day, we all come to Wikipedia to make a good encyclopedia, and we can't do that without resolving disputes like this amicably. Please give it some thought. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sounds like a plan, as long as other ARS members agree. Thanks for the thoughtful, neautral and polite intervention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I am working on a straw poll, for all members. Ikip (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I know, Ikip. I can see it on your talk page. But the ARS deciding what the ARS should do will not end the disputes and the arguments from those outside who have concerns about its scope. I am also concerned that a poll about the ARS is principally about removing one of its critics, but that is a matter that can be discussed elsewhere. What I am proposing is a way by which you can stop all of the stuff that has been going on. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't an easier resolution for this be to remove the material that doesn't involve improving articles up for deletion? It seems like keeping it there would involve opening a big can of drama, and it's rather irrelevant to the purpose of this anyway. Rebecca (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That is an issue of scope, and part of the ongoing dispute. I think that it needs a wider input - if the community agrees with the scope you propose, then noone can claim it is a case of personal bias. And vice versa, of course Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Me doing that in the first place started all of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :Honestly, I think who should decided what is or is not in this project should be the members of this project, especially when what ARS is going is no different from any other project. In addition, yesterday a huge number of editors spontaneously appeared on this project who had rarely participated in ARS, and whose edit histories show they are extremely opposed to the goals of this project. Editors like NUKE AND PAVE should not decide the fate and future of this project. This is a bad idea. Ikip (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Well, it's an awkward one, I admit. :) A regular WikiProject interacts with a small range of articles, but even they are answerable to the community, and there are often RfCs about their guidelines or specific points. WikiProjects are owned by the community at large not their members (something they occasionally have to be reminded of! :) ), and indeed I have seen several ARS members remind critics of the "mandate" that the squadron have from the community - with community support of the expansion of scope, there can be no accusations of overextension for what is undoubtedly a very useful project. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC) To respond to your addition: Yes, which is why you have an RfC closed by a neutral administrator or bureaucrat, rather than a poll that could be stacked by those with no reasonable arguments. I hope you weren't associating me with any of your latter remarks? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "but even they are answerable to the community" This sounds incresingly like this is a carrot and stick offer. Is there any precendence for this? A wikiproject being dictated on what they can and cannot do by editors who are dramatically opposed to their very existence, asking the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy? Ikip (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure carrots and sticks come into it. I should point out that I am *not* suggesting the RfC cover the old scope of the ARS, which was limited to articles at AfD - there don't seem to be any disputes over this, so it isn't an issue, and so the existence of ARS wouldn't be at issue. And if it is a community-wide RfC, a handful of extreme positions aren't going to matter. And finally, yes - WikiProjects hold RfCs all the time. Unless you think that the entire community opposes the ARS (which seems unlikely) then an RfC (as opposed to a poll) should be fine. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) As I just barely wrote, I can't accept the idea that ARS has to ask the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy. Those who delete articles are much better organized, ironically because they are involved in wikiprojects which support deletion of some topic. So I have no faith in a fair RFC. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Well, it is the next step in dispute resolution, and this is a dispute. And it is no more or less than any other group on Wikipedia has to cope with when they want to expand their scope in a sensitive way. It doesn't bode well for WikiProjects when they don't engage with the community at large over their activities and instead rely on their own membership for the rules. As a pertinent example,Esperanza springs to mind. A wide scope project, eliminated because it became too isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. I think you don't have a lot of faith in the community, and you need to, because collaboration is what has made Wikipedia great Fritzpoll (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) No its not. Editor assistance, Third opinion. Neither have been tried. Again, ARS is simply wanting the same rights and priveleges that other wikiprojects enjoy. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC) And you shall have them! :) Editor assistance is unlikely to be productive in this type of dispute, and you ahve received third opinions to no avail, although admittedly not through a formal process. RfC is the next step - and to have one is not to treat ARS any differently than any other group on Wikipedia, nor is there a stigma associated with requesting external comment. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC) You've linked that essay here three times, which is three more times than I've linked it anywhere. I'm not happy with it yet. If you have a problem with it, feel free to edit it or take it to MFD, but knock off the red herring bullshit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Let's try to avoid this argument in this section, please. I know it's frustrating, but if we can settle the content issues, you guys need never feel you have to interact again. Happy days, eh? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry if you are embarrassed by it. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The content issues are vastly secondary. The issue is Ikip's disruption of this project, with baiting and personal attacks and filibustering. It's a chicken and egg problem: well, nothing can be done about Ikip until this whole scope issue is resolved. But Ikip is constantly disrupting discussions of the scope, and starting new fights when the old die out. But if I walked away from this, he'd be attacking Fram or Thumperward or even Uncle G, exactly as he did above. This attitude that there is a unified enemy that must be organized against and attacked is toxic. How do you have a civil discussion of contentious topics when even the subject of discussing the contentious topic is met with trolling? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) You are trying to bait me again AMIB. And please WP:NPA, I would apprecaite you removing "trolling". "Ikip's disruption of this project" please. AMIB we both know the long laundry list of you disruption here. I can't believe you just said that, I am the one disrupting things. Ikip (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe, but a behavioural problem is best handled elsewhere than a project talk page. I understand the frustrations for both of you, but we've got to get past it. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) It's a behavioral problem that faces the RFC. We have, above, a thread that got the sort of outside input that you're talking about, and it will be disrupted, in exactly the fashion above. This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for. That's why it's a chicken and egg problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for", exactly right and one of the reasons i tried to hat this. Ikip can you not see the irony in your comment "You are trying to bait me again"? David D. (Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Everyone chill out. I think the best way to deal with it is to abstract away names, and come up with a phrasing of the question/issue that both sides thinks is fair. Then we present that issue to a group of outside editors, while you both step aside and abstain from participating -- either you or your friends -- at least for the first few days. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for stopping by, but ARS is not a WikiProject. I'm OK with most of the rest of the above comments, but ARS is not a WikiProject any more than 3O, MedCab, or AN are. In fact, I'd encourage ARS to jettison all trappings (membership lists, etc.) that are unnecessarily similar to a Wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That's fine too. It doesn't resolve the issues of scope and clearly this is a subject of disagreement as well, which could perhaps also be included in the RfC. Let's not get bogged down in the arguments now - all you need to decide is if you want to organise an RfC yourselves to finally sort these disputes out. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I think Fritzpoll is right, we need a third-opinion. As neither an inclusionist or a deletionist, I've been trying to provide a third-opinion. (Operative word: trying.) But really, we probably need an independent group of Wikipedians to talk about this whole concept amongst themselves -- at least for a few days. Only after a consensus has emerged, maybe bring out some of the familiar faces on either side (both AMiB and ikip), but not until they've had a chance to think about the issue in abstract. An independent and wide group of Wikipedians need to decide if it's appropriate to recruit a group based on their inclusion philosophy and then begin linking that group to all kinds of deletion or policy discussions. I'm against this kind of campaigning -- whether it's done by inclusionists or deletionists -- because I think it turns Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, complete with home-bases, generals, and ... squadrons. I liked ARS better when it was concerned with improving articles, even if it wasn't perfect. I shudder to think what would happen if people disagree with that principle, and someone ultimately organizes an equally partisan group at WP:SCISSORS, with permission to link to the AFD discussions they want to. If that were to happen, I could only hope that administrators would disregard the !votes of both camps. But that's my opinion, and we have to go with what the consensus thinks is good practice. So let's figure out a venue to have this discussion, where it won't be contaminated by the usual voices for at least for a few days. Randomran (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC) What we need is to stop all of these kinds of discussions that always descend into accusatory terrain and get back to improving articles. That is what I tried to do with the two threads above. I cannot understand why so much time on Wikipedia is used on RfCs and the like rather than on article building. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Couldn't agree with you more, A Nobody. But that's kind of why we need to get a resolution to the dispute - so that everyone can get back to doing what's important. A short-term loss of time in an RfC will be a medium-term gain in articles being improved Fritzpoll (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I have yet to personally see an RfC on anything that really accomplished anything other than just raise tensions further. The ones on editors (no need to name names, most here no who I mean) of both inclusionist and deletionist leanings hardly had any meat in the end. Ones on say Plot#Not just showed that the community is totally divided. I think a sign of who is here to improve articles would be seeing who all takes a stand against these threads that seem to go nowhere and do indeed answer my appeals above to divert energy back to article improvement, as say User:Dream Focus and I have been doing at this article under discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Alas, we have to resolve disputes somehow, and whilst I agree that RFC/U is a little bit of a time-waster, I have seen RfCs in this domain work quite well provided people can remain reasonably civil - and if we actually get someone to determine the outcome of the discussion, which a lot of failed RfCs do not do. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, an independent discussion would be helpful. Something without the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Which is nearly impossible to accomplish here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, exactly what me and Fritz are saying. At this point, it's time to work together to frame the issue, and then put it to independent parties, while we sit and watch for a while. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Someone from either "side" (I hate using such words) would never go along with that, though. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I hate that word too, but there are definitely sides here, and both parties are proud of their side. If we can't frame the issue in a way that both sides agree with, maybe we can identify the issues they agree upon, and let them both present their arguments where they disagree... then leave it to an independent group to look over and assess. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Or better yet, we doing something proactive. Why not divide up the articles currently rescue templated and see how many we can successfully improve? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That's not going to happen until we deal with the issue of when it's appropriate to link to talk pages. Otherwise, we're going to keep getting the links, and we're going to keep getting the pushes into a discussion page, and we're going to keep getting the push-backs. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC) If AfDs are truly closed based on strength of arguments and not by number of participants, then it really wouldn't matter how many editors of a likely bias comment in the AfD. And as far as what we have here, it should be a common courtesy to ask for input from those who have actually been working on the articles under discussion, just as we typically (or should) notify relevant wikiprojects. It should not be about "winning" arguments or feeling somehow personally slighted if an article someone nominated ultimately gets kept. We should want or hope more than anything that when we nominate an article for deletion someone proves us wrong and actually improves it. That is what is best for our project, not scoring AfD wins or anything else, and getting input from article builders and those knowledgeable about the topic under discussion is worthwhile to reaching that end. Napoleon said, "There are people who really believe in their talent to govern simply because they are governing." That can be Wikified in many ways. Just commenting in AfDs doesn't necessarily translate into having some kind of super knowledge or expertise that somehow trumps others' insights. Just because someone has been editing for a time doesn't automatically mean they know better than the rest of us and what's good for the rest of us. I would much rather hear the viewpoints of those who are willing to look for sources and improves the articles under discussion than from those who are not willing and in some cases don't want to to the point of wanting the article deleted under any circumstance, because it's a "type" of article. Here, once again, we are making an issue of a non-issue and filling up all sorts of talk page space with words that cannot once again make me think imagine if all of this text (from sadly now myself included) were used referencing articles instead. One of the biggest let downs of Wikipedia is how much time all of us (as I am commenting here, I am guilty too), spend arguing over trivialities rather than building articles. We make waaaay more out of things than we should, because again, the end result is we get new insights from people in discussions rather than the same olds. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This issue is based on a legitimate disagreement as to how we obtain new insights for important discussions. Is it helpful, disruptive, or merely tolerable if someone organizes a WP-space based on inclusion philosophy, and then uses that WP-space to link to discussions? I'm sure there are deletionists and inclusionists where this is a matter of pride and "victory", so that's why it's important to ask the question as a matter of behavior -- using the rule equally across the inclusion spectrum. This issue is not going to just go away by asking people to focus on articles, because the issue is fundamentally linked to whether we organize the WP-space based on improving articles or we organize the WP-space based on exerting ideological influence upon talk page discussions. I don't think we're going to make much more progress here, because you've already made up your mind about the issue (although it appeared you leaned the other way), as have I. So to get closure, we need to put it to an independent group who can say "you're right AMiB, this is a problem" or "you're right ikip, anyone should be able to do this because it's helpful". That's not going to happen here. But outside editors are coming here to try and help out, and get it away from inclusionism/deletionism, so we can close this discussion in a non-ideological way. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC) We need not make a hash out of every single perceived issue on Wikipedia. We don't need a committee to iron every last thing out. Making an issue out of everything does more harm than not, i.e. it raises more tensions, makes editors bitter, and doesn't really improve any articles. We should reserve this much text for the really serious issues. Believe me, there's lots of stuff that I think flat out wrong and bothersome regarding deletions, but life is too short to get riled up over everything I am not happy about. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This is an issue that will cut across every talk page discussion that ARS links to. Unfortunately, this issue is exactly about how much text we should spend on really serious issues, and who that text should come from. Personally, I'd love to find a way to reduce the amount of text, by making that text less partisan. Randomran (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The best thing anyone can do is to lead by example. Rescue some articles, show people how "it's done" as it were, and then encourage them to help in these efforts. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Leadership by example hasn't been working, unfortunately. Maybe we should drastically scale back the number of talk page discussions that we link to? Randomran (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Speaking as someone who was part of WP:ARS back when it was first started, I'll agree with Fritzpoll & Randomran in their statements. This WikiProject has drifted away from its original intent -- to save articles on notable subjects by improving them. (Perhaps the best example would be Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture -- Carcharoth took an article that was facing deletion because it appeared to be a crufty list of random stuff & made it into a wonderful article.) The reasoning was that if you knew a subject was notable, then you knew enough to rewrite the article so it was a clear keep. The purpose was not to organize inclusionists to vote to keep articles, not to provide one more battlefield for partisans, not to create an in-group like Esperanza reportedly became. You don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to further its goals -- but it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work. And if individuals try to twist the goals of this WikiProject to something else, then IMHO they are being disruptive, & should be treated accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC) There are diverse opinions from ARS members. The "deletionist element" (I hate such labels) are seen by some as disruptive in their actions, just as some perceive the "inclusionist side" as sometimes being disruptive. That brush paints both ways. So restricting what a member can or cannot do "as a member" might simply force folks to leave the ARS as membership being pointless... leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those few who remain and encouraging a perhaps geater "battlefield". Or is the reduction of ARS volunteer membership an unpoken goal? You correctly point out that "it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work". I personally find the community at ARS {both the inclusionary and exclusionary elements), and the limited tools we have, to be of great value to work on improving the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "All are welcome" - says so right at the top of the page, so of course opinions will be diverse, and it would be good to remember that rather than get dragged into discussions of who is somehow "entitled" to be a member, who is a "leader" of the project etc.- all that smacks of ownership. pablohablo. 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The issue of membership or not is not problematic - all WikiProjects maintain lists of members who are interested editors. I don't think there is any question either that the concept of ARS in the rescuing of articles up for deletion is not a very good one, and I would never suggest putting that up for debate at an RfC, since it is the founding purpose of the project. All the disputes here have a root in a perceived expansion in that role, as I mention (and so won't bore you by repeating) in my opening comments. My receiving a wider mandate from the community with a fresh perspective over whether ARS' remit extends, for example to all XfDs, the issues (and therefore the damaging and time-consuming arguments) are rendered moot and the work of the project can focus on article rescue, and whatever other areas ARS finds it has mandate to work in. A community-wide RfC is helpful because, as Schmidt suggests, such labels as inclusionist and deletionist are only applicable to a tiny minority of editors - most editors are some shade of grey. WikiProjects are for the benefit of Wikipedia - a collaborative effort of many editors of many viewpoints - asking the community for feedback on some of these issues is an obvious step to allowing ARS to get on with its job. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC) No argument here, the more feedback the better. pablohablo. 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Excellent - it seems there is a it of positive feedback in regards to my proposal. I will see how this plays out over the next 24 hours and then we can gather together the issues regarding the ARS that need resolving for the RfC. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Fritzpoll, I have changed my mind. If you feel like an rfc is the best thing, lets do an RFC. I have struck all of my disagreements. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Glad to hear you say that, Ikip - I'm not sure how well this would work if you weren't on board Fritzpoll (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC) It sounds like it would go on without me, regardless, so I might as well catch the train, it beats getting ran over by it. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) And now discussions can begin on just who gets notified and how. Carefully. If the notification results in specific attentions of avowed "deletionists" or "inclusionists", one "side" or the other will cry foul. Certainly a notice at the villiage pimp might suffice, but I was aboard and working on articles months before I ever knew it existed, and fell it would not bring the input from a large enough section of the community. One way, might be to use the last (arbitrary number XXX) AfD articles tagged for rescue by ARS, whether kept or deleted or merged or redirected, and send a bot notice to every particpant of such AFDs... which would then fairly and neutrally include every editor from either side of the fence who particpated in such discussions either pro or con. "Inclusionists" cannot claim undue advantage to "deletionists" nor vice-versa. It is how those (arbitrary number XXX) of articles were improved or not which becomes the basis of the discussion and ARS's part... not who did it or not or what their motives were. Improving articles for the improvement of wiki is the bottom line. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Comemnt. I appreciate the potential for more clarity. In addition, the point that our project page needs to be updated per recent discussions also makes sense. We just had an RfC and that confirmed that TfD, and arguably other XfD items were fine for ARS. In addition some more experience folks in ARS and AfD/DrV issues seem to be aligned that at least some uses of rescue tag on DrVs are also acceptable. ARS is a Wikiproject concerned directly with AfD and as such various discussion on perceived problems and solutions of XfD have always happened. As is evident by even this last week's participation there are diverging opinions on if ARS is enabling canvassing in practice or spirit. Depending on one's views and interpretation of what it means to enable and canvass may set your decsion one way or another on if ARS does do this. As such I feel scope RfC would be a somewhat fruitless use of energy as our scope actually hasn't changed as much as been specifically clarified that rescuable content can be found across the encyclopedia. Stepping a bit into theory here, our good and best articles combine ideas as words, templates, images, categories etc to convey information. ARS is here to help find ways of rescuing content that benefits our articles and thus our readers. Scope is not been the core concern although that is a byproduct of contention which has been somewhat resolved. I have little doubt that RfC would support using ARS on most of not all XfD with the main concern of how do we make it work while mitigating problems. Thus our project page should be updated and clarified a bit, something I was hoping to do but have been largely derailed by the rather full discussion here instead. Talking is good but so is doing. IMHO, the issues to be worked out - on a project level first - is how to address the perceptions of ARS talkpage posts used to canvass and reactions to those perceptions as well as similar perceptions of the results as seen on AfDs. Regardless if they technically are or are not canvassing there really shouldn't be a need to battle over talkpage posts as much as approach them civilly. Seperately, but perhaps intertwined based on one's perspective, is the percieved canvassing on XfD discussions themselves. That is does the rescue tag cause canvassing or what? The answer IMHO is that it doesn't but there are always folks who will !vote poorly (both for or against) so addressing those editors would sem to make sense. As such ARS can have a proactive stance and look to doing a coopertaive AfD survey of recently-closed AfDs. Creating a list of all editors with "empty" !votes and contacting them to point out the waste of their energy and encourage them to more fully express their position. Personally I have a proposal for each of these areas and I think it would expeditiously help rather than what looks to more (another) lengthy discussions about perceived motives. If we can find common ground on how to civilly approach these issues I think that would make sense so all those interested in working on articles again can do so. -- Banjeboi 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Michael, I think we need to focus on what we should be asking, before we focus on how to ask. Actually, now that I think about it, your suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. Benjiboi, I have been thinking about it long and hard, and I am actually open to not posting DRVs and TFDs, simply refering these posters to sister projects, if those sister projects encourage the saving of articles, not to deletion. I don't know. I am up in the air about all of this. But if you feel it is settled, then it is settled. It would suggest we all start to use the word "notification" instead of canvassing, which has a negative connotation. I think a good basis to start from is our sister projects, what does and does not work for them, how do they approach notification? Instead of maybe focusing on subject wikiprojects, maybe see what works on wikiprojects like, Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability, which revolve around a template too, {{notability}}, their first sentence states: "The Notability Project is a WikiProject based on Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability." or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam they have {{Cleanup-spam}} Ikip (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC) The above is all tl;dr, with plenty of name-calling and whatnot. Personally, I think if the following happened, the bickering would stop: The ARS diligently self-polices this talk page and removes any sort of attempts to direct attention to a policy or guideline discussion relating to notability (or really, any policy or guideline not germane to the functioning of the project). WP:VPP, WP:CENT, and WP:VPR exist for a reason. If people here are so worried about missing essential policy discusisons, they can watchlist the aforementioned pages. There should be no need to place any messages whatsoever here, as it's irrelevant to this project and as shown, has only served to inflame conflict. ARS members who actively improve articles at deletion recuse themselves from actually !voting and instead note on the AfD itself that they have made improvements to the article. It decreases the possibility of any possible partisan conflict to zero and indicates that any possible improvement is made in good faith with no attempt to escalate any sort of conflict. A Nobody already does this (or has; his behavior changes so rapidly I don't keep track), so it shouldn't be difficult for people here to follow that. They are free to inform people on their talk pages to revisit their !votes to see whether their improvements are sufficient and continue to work on the article if they are not. The ARS conducts fairly regular (say quarterly) sweeps through its members and removes inactive ones who haven't done any article rescuing. Uncle G's points above are salient: if you aren't actually doing any article rescuing, you shouldn't really be associated with this project. The premise of the project is someone no one—inclusionists and deletionists alike—will disagree with. There are quite a few people here because the ARS has been effectively turned into a political tool for inclusionists, which as the founding members of the ARS have adequately put it, was not the original intention of the project by any stretch of the imagination. Other WikiProjects do this ocassionally with their members by asking people to resign as members to show that they still have an interest in the project. I don't see why this should be any different. Project members already give out barnstars actively for rescuing articles, so motivation shouldn't be a problem here. The ARS appoints a corps of coordinators to ensure that this is all enforced and that it stays on task with its intended goal: improving articles. See WP:FILMC and WP:MHC for examples. There's already plenty of maintenance work within the project, so this isn't a hard job to undertake. I'd recommend that people widely considered open-minded and accessible by both "sides" of the inclusion spectrum take the job. They should be readily apparent at this point. If no one can agree to anything concrete here, then I'd agree with Fritzpoll that an RfC is necessary, and if nothing comes of that, then ArbCom may be appropriate to stop the behavior issues coming out of the rampant canvassing that has been seen here. It's greatly disturbing to see that so many of the original members of the ARS find the direction the ARS is taking to be grossly wrong, and if the current members don't interpret that as a sign that something is amiss, then we're going to ultimately end up at ArbCom as I previously noted. I pray it doesn't come to that. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive. It's really not very hard - find somewhere else to put the policy stuff, and leave this page for its original purpose - rescuing articles from deletion by improving them. Attempting to make this particular page into a general inclusionist thing is stirring up drama for no good reason - when it could just be put somewhere else. Rebecca (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Sigh, another proposal to neuter ARS from an editor whose edit history is completely opposed to the ideals of ARS. At least you didn't say you have the best interest of ARS in mind like others have. Sephiroth BCR, you are a member of, contributed to (or been mentioned in) 69 wikiprojects, of those 69 wikiprojects, how many have had outsiders come in and demand such draconian solutions? I agree with Rebecca, that "This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive" Lets be fair here folks. If everyone is so worried about policy discussions, canvassing, etc in wikiprojects, lets move this discussion to Wikipedia:Wikiprojects and we can have a RFC there, to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things. 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) It's a silly suggestion, for sure, but it's not being helped by the fact that certain people associated with this project are going for the dramaful option instead of the easier one. Look, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist. On matters of policy, I probably agree with these people. But the drama-free way of dealing with this is to let this focus on improving articles to save them from deletion, and to ship the policy and canvassing stuff either to a) someone's user subpage, or b) some other WikiProject - which has the advantage of not enveloping something which is actually working quite well in megadrama. If that material disappears elsewhere, then so does the drama. Rebecca (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I would not throw out Sephiroth's suggestions so quickly. They are not bureaucratic but instead a way to separate the goals of rescuing articles from the non-goal of directly influencing XFD !voting, though I 'd argue the 3rd suggestion, about purging non-rescuing members, to be the only questionable addition. The fourth about project coordinators is something that many WP have taken up so that's completely fair to ask for. The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give this project the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an inclusionist cabal. They are not bureaucratic but instead simply reflect basic existing principles on WP (notably WP:COI). --MASEM (t) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Masem, what do you think of the idea of having an RfC at Wikipedia:Wikiprojects to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things? I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, a project which you are a member of, and which actively discusses deletions and policy, should have these same rules too, what do you think? And no, its not because of the alleged disruption of this project that we are different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. What rules have we broken? I love this entry: (←) Might I suggest we set out a project purge, basically going to all WikiProjects that deal with video games but outside of video games, and drop a message in the main project talk page that unless there is a "wait, hold it!", the project will be reverted to a Task Force of WP:VG? Obviously, the larger active onces will reply, but others will probably just be adsorbed. --MASEM 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Masem wants to create a "project purge" of video games, and yet he is here telling ARS how we should function, am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? Masem, I think WP:VG should adapt the first two recommendations because: "The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give [project video games] the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an deletionist cabal." Ikip (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Personally I do not see a contradiction here. I see it as a consolidation. No information would be lost, as far as I can see. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC) The suggestion (which was ultimately done) to move VG related WP into the WP:VG was a matter of helping to remove the extraneous weight of those smaller projects and to help them to come under the usual conformity of WP:VG. The only thing that would be deleted, if anything, were the pages in Wikipedia: space related to that project that would be unnecessary as a Task Force. That's nothing like what you are suggesting or the matter at hand of main space articles. And when AFD notices usually go up on the talk page at WT:VG, they either are neutral, or are meant to help get more project insight on an AFD that is going the opposite direction that the project would have - whether this is keep or delete (eg just as if a large number of editors are clamoring to keep a barely notable flash game and thus the WP:VG are brought in to help assert what is necessary, there are requests to help prevent topics from being deleted). There is no implicit project bias to keep or remove topics. Unfortunately, there is an implicit bias by this project to keep articles - that itself is not bad nor should be removed, but it has to be kept in mind in all actions that members of this project take. That means advertising for non-rescue help for AFDs on this page is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Well, I expected Ikip's refusal to even address the substance of my points and merely attack me, and would be interested to see what the other ARS members have to say. These aren't difficult requests. The ARS retains its core values and can safely remove any partisan influences from it should it implement my suggestions. Dismissing it as mere "bureaucracy" is rather vacuous also. Other projects have coordinators to manage large numbers of task forces, discussions, and other material (I should know, I'm a coordinator for WP:FILM), and arguing that this is "bureaucracy" implies that this is being created for no other purpose than to have a process, which is blatantly false. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Agree about coordinators being needed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions that need answering

Ok, there seems to e a rough consensus for an RfC. To answer Schmidt's question above, I would suggest a posting to WP:VPP and WP:CENT, which would not canvass any side specifically - I'm open to other suggestionsm but for the sake of propriety, I would be wary of any individual talk page postings. Hopefully there can be some agreement on that before the RfC opens.

So, what questions need answering? I suggest that if there is a question that needs answering, we start a new subsection below and discuss how to present the wording of the pro and con argument for the community to consider. I have a few ideas, but I'll just set up a sample or two below to get the ball rolling - what I write isn't set in stone, it is a distilation of the sides as I see it, and further discussion can add, remove or refine. Add subsections, go wild, but stay civil. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1: ARS should participate in non-article XfD discussions like other wikiprojects.

	Argument
Pro	The Article Rescue Squadron presently deals with rescuing articles, but other XfD discussions ultimately impact on encyclopedic content. For example, the content of an article template being discussed at TfD could feasibly be improved to allow retention of a useful article element.
Con	The Article Rescue Squadron improves articles by finding sources, or improving coverage. However, XfDs involve templates, task forces, and other technical or behavioral constructs, and it is not clear how the reason for deletion can be resolved through the editing process.

I think this is acceptably summarised, but I must admit the possibility of fault. I suggest discussion of this in terms of whether this is an acceptable way to present the question, rather than spending further time debating the validity of the opposing positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm really opposed to this concept at this time. This project as a whole has been maligned now for weeks and we just finished an RfC stating that indeed Xfd was likley within scope and certainly TfDs were. Seperately a group of editors familiar with the issues came to a rough consensus that DrVs could also be acceptable. In the midst of some rather contentious and disruptive activities to this project I find the rather uninspiring prospect of rehashing conversation already meted out troubling. You may not accept this but any such RfC will quickly devolve into the "as long as they don't canvass" refrain which is the real issue to be addressed. And lo, we are. If you must do a system-wide RfC then one on Are posts to Wikiprojects still suppose to be NPOV? would be more apropo or Should we look to enforcing quality participation at XfD? Scope is really not the problem or source of contention here. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ben. Notifying other editors is the central issue here. DRVs have already been discussed, and we agreed that DRVs are okay. Again, I think a wikipedia:wikiprojects RfC on this issue is the best route. Ikip (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - it was just a sample :) I'll chuck some other in below, with pros and cons to be editedFritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll, In all three suggestions you posit you use absolute words.

Proposal one: "all"

Proposal two: "any"

And most troubling of all, proposal three: "unlimited" with the words "any" "perfect" in the text.

I fear you are wording questions the average wikipedian will of course object too.

Instead of using absolute terms, I suggest comparing ARS to comparable wikiprojects. Ikip (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - it's the feedback we need: I'm not infallible when it comes to the wording. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Even with the recent changes this one, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- Banjeboi 03:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That depends - it remains disputed as to what extent ARS is a WikiProject, doesn't it? And if it isn't, then this question is more relevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a resolved issue? The last RFC wrapped up with the conclusion that it's an appropriate use of the tag if the non-article could be fixed up to resolve the deletion argument, and inapprpriate otherwise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you felt it was an issue? Obviously ARS doesn't think it's an issue. But if no one thinks it's an issue, then we should drop it. Randomran (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still skeptical that there are a significant number of non-AFDs that meet this description. The consensus (which I've since found pretty convincing) is that if the number is non-zero, then it's worth tagging, and if the number is zero, who cares? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear then. Does your skepticism mean you think it's a problem, or mean you don't care? Obviously, ikip and Benjiboi don't think it's an issue. If everyone agrees it's not an issue, it will be easier to move on. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming that everyone respects the consensus of that RFC, then I don't foresee any problems. I'd be a lot more reassured if Banj's response to the RFC wasn't blithe "Well, looks like nobody saw any problem with this." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

... still confused. I take it by "unhatting" this issue, you still think it might be a bad idea for ARS to participate in non-article XfDs? Randomran (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify why ARS would even want to (Other than for the obvious ones such as {{rescue}})? David D. (Talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of vague on that myself. To my mind, Banje's argument was that ARS would be a good source of input on contentious TFD discussions, which sounded to me a bit too much like "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly" from the RCH DRV mess. The argument that carried the day was that there was non-article encyclopedia content that may end up for deletion because it is malformed, not because it is ill-conceived. I find that it's very rare that non-AFD deletion discussions bring up issues that can be fixed with editing (as opposed to conceptual or implementation issues), but I'm willing to concede that should a fixable template/image/whatever be up for deletion, then {{rescue}} is appropriate for it. Rehashing that discussion is almost certain to end up with the same consensus; if there's a fixable non-article, then {{rescue}} is appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually my mention of {{rescue}} was an example of a template that they might be interested in rescuing from deletion (would they tag it with {{rescue}} :) ). In other words, I can only see an interest with respect to templates they actually use. The scope of the ARS was always conceived as rescuing content, as far as I can tell. I fully endorse that goal but don't see a need for it outside AfD. Why would ARS be interested in organizational/cataloging tools. Besides most of those deletion discussion are focused around usability and usefulness, not content notability and sourcing. Two very different beasts. David D. (Talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than tagging {{ARS/Tagged}} and whatnot (which I see as kind of dumb but mostly harmless), I think we agree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is dumb - never mind - but the point is, as a group, of course ARS should participate in relevant TfD discussions. It's just that is is hard to think of many that would be relevant. David D. (Talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, I never suggested that no one saw any problems, what I have always stated on any issue of conflict is that a reasonable discussion with constructive suggestions is helpful. Generally everything else is not. This is a pointy thread and RfC 2.0 as the last thread made clear TfDs and perhaps other XfDs wer fine for ARS' attention. That RfC only happenned because of your insistance to deleting any mention of a TfD, neutral or otherwise. To me this feels like a project verson of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, ergo making the entire project sit through various diatribes on how bad, off, or other allegations ARS is. You have had some valid concerns but they are simply wasted when presented in this way. Extrapolating specific user conduct concerns to an entire Wikiproject is completely unacceptable. -- Banjeboi 00:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT is almost always an indication that the person linking them does not understand the argument he or she is responding to. I insisted on removing {{rescue}} because your stated purpose was to bring people from ARS to the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Obviously ARS doesn't think it's an issue. But if no one thinks it's an issue, then we should drop it." I agree. Ikip (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reclose Proposal 1

This proposal although perhaps well-intended is only rehashing previous discussions. The recenetly closed RfC - affirmed by univolved admins because even the close was argued about - affirmmed that non-article XfDs were acceptable, ergo this proposal is malformed and will be IMHO a waste of community energy. The core issue was non-neutral posts to this page seen as canvassing and the fallout to the reactions to those posts and that where any energy should be vectored.

• Support. as nom. -- Banjeboi 00:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support lets also !vote on the color of the templates Ikip (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and close it: AMiB says "if there's a fixable non-article, then {{rescue}} is appropriate". I think most people on both sides agree on this issue. I hope this shows that it's possible to disagree without it being based in bad faith, incivility, or accusations. Randomran (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussions

	Argument
Pro	ARS is a grouping dedicated to rescuing content, but important content may escape their notice. Other editors should be able to notify the ARS of XfD discussions that they may not have seen. This is an ordinary activity for any project, and ARS is similar in scope. Issues of biasing such discussions are irrelevant, because AfXs are not a vote. It is unclear whether the new members since February follow an inclusionist ideology, or if they have any impact on ARS or at AfD discussions.
Con	In February, an editor invited 300 editors to join ARS, and selected these 300 editors based on their use of "inclusionist templates". (See an example of said recruitment.) Whereas ARS membership grew at an average of 7 per month until February, it grew by 65 in February before falling back to 26 new members in March and 15 new members in April. If these new ARS members were largely attracted by the viewpoint-specific recruitment drive, then notifying ARS of discussions may risk biasing and polarizing such a discussion (even if such notification is done neutrally and in good faith). If other editors were to use this combination of viewpoint-specific recruitment and discussion-linking, Wikipedia could quickly descend into a battleground between viewpoint-specific blocs.

May need some expansion/cleaning up, but this seems to summarise the different positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Both pro and con are expressed very succinctly; together they express the tug of war that's going on around here. I'm commenting to get the conversation rolling. Radiopathy •talk• 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that might need more evidence. It used to be that ARS was not dominantly inclusionist, but rather focused on editors who tried in good faith to bring articles in line with current policies and guidelines. But the recent recruitment drive has changed ARS. I can find diffs to help substantiate that, if need be. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to see the difs. I came here during Ikip's notorious "canvassing campaign" when I had an "Inclusionist" userbox on my Userpage (which has since been replaced with an ARS userbox). If you look at the membership list, however, most of the people who joined ARS did so before being invited by Ikip. I think the Inclusionist/!vote stacking arguements are more pointy than factual. Radiopathy •talk• 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The con section reads like an accusation, rather than a statement of fact. It's an accurate mirror of an accusation levelled at ARS, but that doesn't mean the point has been proven or is a given. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I felt that was problematic - perhaps something a little less absolute: "It has been suggested that...."? Edit freely. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Well meaning perhaps but this is just another, IMHO, abuse of community energy. The core question is can a Wikiproject be notified of policy and XfD discussion that may impact their work - the answer is "of course". We are seeking non-answers to non-problems. The real issue was with percieved canvassing, the reactions to that percieved canvassing and the implosion of age-old battles having rather little to do with ARS as a whole. If the notification messages are limited and NPOV then there is really no issue as long as no one over-reacts in any direction. I'm active in the LGBT project, regualrly posts are made concerning XfDs, RfDs and other bits of interests. We have thousnads of articles across concievable every genre and we regularly work with other specilist wikiprojects to effect the right decisions to benefit our readers. Do we agree with every policy? Hardly. But we do discuss them and how seriously to get involved and how we can assist on an issue. If posts to ARS are NPOV the issues, IMHO, would melt away. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• I don't personally think this is that much of an issue either, because people have always contacted ARS about XFDs, and most editors are usually pretty careful to distinguish actual rescue efforts from the occasional empty vote. But for the sake of closure, I think it's fair to present something like this to an independent group, so that we can get an answer and move on. Randomran (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have stated before that neutral notifications of discussions that fall within thz scope of the ARS are no problem. The problems I have are with non-neutral messages, or messages that are outside the scope (like policy discussions). Obviously, the most neutral message one can deliver at the ARS, and all that should be needed, is adding the rescue tag, which automatically adds the discussion to this talk page, the main page, the notification template many members have on their user page, and a category. But a section like "X is up for deletion. Is it worth putting the "rescue" tag on it?" is of course no problem either. Fram (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Same as the first proposal. Policy discussions that impact a project certainly are appropriate, its quite foolish to think any project would simply lockstep march along oblivious to decisions which all editors are encouraged to take part in. Even with the recent changes this one, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • But why would the opinion of the ARS be so relevant to warrant special notification of a discussion on WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, or merge discussions on a number of articles? What reason is there to single out this project for an invitation to participate in such debates? They have no special authority, are not specialized in these subjects, ... Individual editors are of course welcome to participate, and are aware of these discussions by the same means as any other eitor: but the project, as a project, should just enact the conclusions, not try to influence them. If a group of articles no longer is rescueable becaues of a policy change, so be it. If a group suddenly becomes rescueable because of a policy change, so be it. People here should know that such a change has occurred. But why should the ARS be invited as a group to join the discussion? Anyway, your comment and my reply belong with proposal #4, not with #2. Fram (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am confused, special notification? How is some editor posting on here, "hey there is a discussion currently about FICT" which a group maybe interested in, "special"? Is this any more "special" than the other wikiprojects which do the same thing? Ikip (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects don't explicitly exclude policy from their scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Special notification" is an editor singling out the ARS to come and join a policy discussion because apparently said editor suspects (correctly or incorrectly) that the ARS will support his more inclusionist-leaning opinion. There is no reason why the ARS should be notified of such a discussion. If a policy or guideline discussion is neutrally posted to all projects, then it is no "special notification". And if you or anyone wants an example, see the start of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 28#Is it appropriate to put a rescue tag on a guideline page?. As has been said before: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more relevant for issue #4, but there are reasons ARS probably shouldn't get into policy-making. As noted above, ARS specifically states on its front page that it rescues articles through improvement, not policy or voting. This was meant to re-assure people who were worried that ARS would be tempted to take the easy way to save articles by lowering quality standards, rather than improving article quality. But IMO, a lot of it has to do with the recent recruitment drive, which isn't necessarily an act of bad faith, nor a problem in of itself. It just raises real concerns of what kind of discussion we're going to have when 300 people who share a common viewpoint are recruited to a project space and then linked to another talk page. Randomran (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. No, we don't exclude policy from our scope. The relevant sentence - The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. - was explicitly added due to rather vociferous allegations that this counters. Indeed ARS is not about casting !votes to keep or creating policies just so nothing gets deleted. To suggest this statement hereby excuses ARS from voting or engaging in policy discussions is simply wrong. Again, just like any other project, we will be involved in discussions that effect the work. The issue remains not n notification but in keeping those notes neutral. -- Banjeboi 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As for the recruitement drive ... I'm a quite active member of the LGBT project. If we sent a neutral invite to everyone who has a "pro"-LGBT userbox - for example "I support equal rights" or "I support same-sex marriage" - and avoided inviting those who have a userbox like "I oppose same-sex marriage", would this argument still hold up? I doubt that it would, IMHO, it woud be ideal if the newbies had more resources/training on how to conduct themselves but alas, we also cannot make them do anything. We all started somewhere but if there is a willingness to positively contribute I see ARS as helping those "recruited" "inclusionists" put their money where their mouth is. If they can hopefully learn not all tagged articles are worth rescuing and sometimes merge is a better solution - at least for now - then we all win. I don't expect this to happen overnight though either. This issue remains on the user-level so the AfD survey and a friendly template message ala why empty !votes suck may be a good resource -- Banjeboi 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comparison is helpful for the current issue. The problem is that people shouldn't be recruited to a project space based on their view on content, and then subsequently linked to discussions about content policy. I might agree with you that people shouldn't be recruited to a project space based on their view of gay marriage, and then linked to discussions about Wikipedia's policy on gay marriage. But Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on gay marriage, or any human right, and these questions are completely outside the scope of Wikipedia. The worst thing that a group of equal rights fanatics could do is work on an article about equal rights, and we have policies like WP:NPOV to prevent them from exerting undue influence. Tell me, what prevents a roster that's been assembled based entirely on their view of content -- deletionist or inclusionist or anti-trivia or pro-spoiler -- from exerting undue influence on content policy? Even at AFDs, such a content-specific roster would have trouble abusing blind !votes, because the closing admin could ignore arguments that under/overstate the article's quality. But there's no such check on that content-specific roster at a content policy discussion. The only thing I can think of is if such rosters were to be restrained from content policy discussions, but I'm open to other ideas. Randomran (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if we were to presume an "inclusionist"-heavy roster here - which I'm not sure I agree with as, again, this is a group that varies and participates in wildly different levels - there remains the second assertion resting upon the first that a notice here will suddenly sway the balance of discussion as to greatly influence policy. I remain unconvinced and my main point is that i see no future in the prospect of banning wikiprojects from being notified of XfD discussions. We don't keep or delete something because there was a lot of !votes one way or another. We keep or deleted based on policies and if that is falling afoul it needs to be addressed at AfD and with closers who are making bad closes. And we do have a check on all discussions - consensus. A similar discussion at the Wikicouncil was along the lines of which projects (as noted on a specific article talkpage) did more work on an article ergo had more ownership. As I poited out then many (most?) editors are in more than one project so is it really helpful to determine which project I'm editing on behalf of? The goal is improving the encyclopedia. Many editors simply don't sign up for any project and simply edit away. Again the only net difference is that some ARS members may participate and bring in their relevant experiences. In general it is far more preferable on any discussin to have more opinions expressed so the best decisions are more likely to be made. And statically speaking this bears fruit. Crowds, even with mixed levels of expertise generally make better decisions than a lone person. This proposal should likely also be closed because the community simply will never support that projects can't be notified of these discussions. The issue remains conduct of a limited few in response to what they saw as non-neutral postings of a few others. We are belabouring points that aren't going to go anywhere. -- Banjeboi 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'd be ready to drop this issue, just because I see an AFD closing admin as intelligent enough to dismiss the "strong keep: i don't see what people are complaining about" types of !votes in the absence of real article improvement. But I still think this is an issue we need closure on, and can't be closed unilaterally. Some of the other editors really disagree with you (and me) in good faith, and it's possible that independent people in the community will see the need to treat ARS as unique, since it truly is a unlike anything else in the project space. Randomran (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
        • We really aren't given any special anything. If any Wikiproject violates community policies then they will be called on it. This is not about ARS recruiting - we never did, that was one editor who acted on their own. This remains not about what ARS does/did but about specific editors posts and the over-reaction to those posts - also a user issues and arguably a civility issue. And I agree, if a XfD closer can't interpret !votes then that's an issue on those closers. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's rather pointy to load a proposal allegedly concerned about battleground issues with inflamaotry laguage and POV. At least keep it neutral. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a little pointy to simultaneously modify the arguments on both sides, and then claim the issue should be closed as a non-issue. Although WP:NPOV only applies to articles, this is a situation where the principle is still good: we represent both viewpoints in fair terms. I'm willing to work on the wording. But you have to be specific about what parts you find non-neutral. I hope the latest version gets us there. But if it doesn't, explain why, and we can try to deal with it. Randomran (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• WP:NPOV is always respected. No sense faning the flames of a fire that need not burn in the first place. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close Proposal 2

This is another propsal that is interesting but also, IMHO, a waste of community energy. All Wikiprojects are notified of XfD, policy discussions, RfC's etc. This isn't changing and the issue remains keeping those notices neutral. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We know how you feel. But we're having an RFC because there's a legitimate good faith disagreement on this issue. Trying to make this decision unilaterally is barely more helpful than trying to make this decision by arguing back and forth. You have nothing to fear from an RFC of independent editors. Randomran (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Benjiboi. Ikip (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support closure per nom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Article Rescue Squadron can conduct itself like other wikiprojects.

Boldy hatting this one as off-topic enough to be unhelpful. The issue remains some behaviours rather than a philosophical discussion of Wikiprojects' rights and responsibilities. -- Banjeboi 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Argument Pro A WikiProject is a group of editors collaborating on encyclopedic content, and this definition fits Article Rescue Squadron. The only difference is that the ARS has a larger scope. Con A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia. The scope of ARS is not specific enough, and so is not a WikiProject, and consequently does not have the need of notification that other WikiProjects may have, in that its editors are not specific experts in the content being discussed. Not Applicable The Article Rescue Squadron is not a WikiProject, nor should it be construed as such. ARS is intended to be (and should remain) a volunteer issue resolution service like WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB. As such, it is never improper for any person to request ARS assistance for improvement to any article currently at AfD. Again, trying to summarise the two sides of this dispute. Undoubtedly overlaps with Proposal 2, but is sufficiently distinct. It may be possible to combine them. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) The con here really needs to be rephrased. There isn't any "right" of notification intrinsic to being a Wikiproject; Wikiprojects are notified because it's a good way to alert knowledgeable editors. Because ARS has a completely unlimited scope, you're not likely to find editors knowledgeable about any specific topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC) How about now? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I changed the slanted title "ARS is a WikiProject with an unlimited scope over content", and reformated the text, removing more absolute terms, "any" "perfect". Ikip (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I think we need to work on this at a separate page. We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point. Merely listing a few options is not going to get good feedback, and definitely not on the main ARS page. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I'm confused Randomran. You wrote: "I don't understand how you can ... continue to push comments about me and WP:FICT that are both incorrect and irrelevant."[6] And here you write: "We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point." Our first contact was on FICT. You, Phil and Masem would have not suddenly shown an interest in this project if it was not for me being heavily involved in the FICT RFC, which would have merged or buried thousands of articles. In addition, one editor here has been incredibly disruptive. When I talk about his behavior editors who support your position, cry foul, and say this is not the right forum to talk about this. But you freely talk about my behavior, first vaguely, and now openly, and no one who supports your position is arguing you should remove these comments. In addition, no one here, in fact, no one anywhere has argued that I have broken any rules. I have followed all wikipedia rules. The rules guide or behavior and tell us what we can and cannot do. I find it incredibly disingeous to punish me, or by extension punish ARS for following the rules. Again Randomran, if you don't like the current rules, change them. But don't attempt to punish a person or project for following all the rules. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC) This has nothing to do with WP:FICT, and our first contact is irrelevant. I'm not talking about those events. I'm talking about the actual recruitment drive and subsequent talk page linking. Which isn't about you, although it's related to you. I'm not looking to punish or single out your behavior, but I don't think it will be possible to present this issue without talking about a few things you did. Specifically, contacting 300 inclusionists. I'm trying not to make this personal, so please don't. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Listen, we should be able to present this civilly and neutrally. We should be able to present what may have changed ARS's scope, and we should also be able to present how other attempts like AMiB were mishandled and needlessly inflammatory and accusatory. I think the first step is to move this RFC under preparation to its own page. Either as a subpage here, or somewhere else. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I STRONGLY oppose moving this to a side page. A sub page will only isolate the page, and lower the number of editors who contribute to this RfC. If we all really want a broad conensus on how to proceed, moving to a side page would not be good. It is obvious that several dozen editors, with varying views from all spectrums, are watching this page. There is no guarantee that this same number of people will watch a side page. Ikip (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I assume that the discussion would be widely advertised per WP:Advertising discussions. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I think the problem with that approach is that the RfC becomes one that is behavioural in basis and causes people to "take sides" - it may be uncomfortable, but I think we can dispense with the history as regards the way the disputes have been pursued by either side. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I think a subpage, perhaps under WP:Centralized discussion or WP:Requests for comment, would be a good idea. Placing the main page in WP space would give it a separate WT page for threaded discussion. The main page can then be structured, perhaps like a formal RfC. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) We're going to need to have a subpage anyway. It's an issue of organization and presentation, because having all those comments on the ARS talkpage is going to be a mess. But it's also an issue of getting independent feedback. We don't want to retread AMiB vs ikip, which got needlessly personal and accusatory. We want to frame the issue fairly, and then let a fresh and independent group deal with it. We can get appropriate feedback by advertising for it. Randomran (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Comment. Again, perhaps well-meaning but unhelpful, IMHO. We certainly are a WikiProject - we are considered a Maintainance Wikiproject. Our scope is XfD and the issues that impact what and how items are deleted. We specialized in finding and rescuing content that is encyclopedic and should be saved from deletion. Other projects in our field may specialize in creating articles and how to work with newbie users along those lines - we do some of that because those are some of the articles at AfD. We concern ourselves not mindlessly working a conveyor belt of items headed for the dust bin but also effecting positive changes that would make a lot less work for us by keeping some of those items from being sent to AfD. If our efforts greatly lessen the abuses of AfD so that only articles that really need to be at AfD are discussed we all win and community energy can be better focussed on seeing which ones really have merit. For instance, many articles should go through a merge process instead of AfD. We have gotten many waves of articles that should have seen a merge into list effort instead and then only those articles that were truely notable on their own broken out. So, we are a Wikiproject and I think the community would reject the concept that Wikiprojects shouldn't be notified of discussions that impact them. The notifications should be neutral and rather minimal encouraging centralized discussion. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC) But this is definitely disputed - it was disputed even as part of my suggestion to have an RfC above. Feel free to suggest things that you think are under dispute as well, as I'm still going through trying to extract salient questions Fritzpoll (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, we need to stop trying to hash the issue out among ourselves, and just try to frame and explain the issue so that an independent group can deal with it. Randomran (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC) It might be instructive to note that a couple of the editors who have opined that we are a wikiproject, Ikip and Benjiboi, have themselves both been lightning rods in various disputes. Maybe there is a need for an ARS and a Wikiproject Inclusionism, for those who want to use the rescue list for purposes beyond the simple improvement of articles at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC) This issue really got away from its essence. The idea that ARS is a WikiProject is an interesting philosophical question, and I guess it undercuts a lot of the issues. But really, the reason why this issue started is because of notification. We're not here to ask whether ARS should be allowed to have an article assessment template on every talk page, or whether ARS should have a task force to bring a few articles to FA status, thus making it consistent with other WikiProjects. Nor are we talking about whether to remove ARS's unique right to put its call sign right on an article, to make it consistent with other WikiProjects. We're talking about whether ARS should be allowed to notify editors of stuff that's only indirectly related to rescuing articles, and don't involve improving articles through the editing process. We're going to need to split this out into two issues -- the WikiProject issue, and the notification of policy RFCs issue. Randomran (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) It's really not. We don't create ways to divide who is the best Wikipedian nor do we find ways to cause divisiveness and gradiations in Wikiprojects. Even admins are considered, at the end of the day, editors. We don't - or at least shouldn't - excuse or encourage special treatment for any. Your work and actions speak for themselves. ARS is a maintenance Wikiproject but that's really just a way to differeentiate between subject-area wikiprojects. This is the thrird proposal that, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I think this whole section is off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter if this is or isn't a Wikiproject. It only matters insofar as Ikip has made the argument that Wikiprojects have inalienable rights. The argument on whether this is a Wikiproject or not is a distraction from "What is the utility of doing [thus and so]?" If there's no good reason to do something here, then it doesn't really matter what other Wikiprojects do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And it's a flawed argument, too. Yes, WikiProjects have rights. But they also have responsibilities like article assessment, and article completion (e.g.: Good Article or Featured Article status) that ARS isn't concerned with. And they have limits that ARS doesn't, like not putting their call sign right on a main article page. ARS is unique, and I don't think anyone at ARS really wants to throw that away to become a WikiProject. Or maybe they do? Randomran (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I completely agree, Randorman. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Wikiprojects and all wikiproject-like things have the "right" to operate in the most efficient manner in helping the encyclopedia and the "responsibility" to not harm the encyclopedia or uselessly impede helping the encyclopedia. Talk page tags exist to help get interested editors to the project, article assessment exists to coordinate cleanup and article writing efforts, etc. ARS can be a wikiproject, it can be a centralized cleanup page, or it can be a llama wool blanket; all that matters is if it's helping and/or harming the encyclopedia. Let's focus on the function or malfunction of actual practices, instead of getting in philosophical fistfights over ascribing rights and responsibilities to arbitrary structures. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Article Rescue Squadron can be directly notified of other discussions, including policy talk pages

	Argument
Pro	ARS is a maintenance Wikiproject focusing on rescuing encyclopedic content, often bringing articles up to Wikipedia's standards. As guidelines and policies are discussed, ARS can be involved because these impact ARS' work. The recent recruitment drive does not change that ARS has no specific ideology, and any editor can become a member of ARS. Thus, notifying ARS members of important policy discussions does not bias or polarize these discussions, so long as the notification is neutral.
Con	In February, an editor invited 300 editors to join ARS, and selected these 300 editors based on their use of "inclusionist templates". (See an example of said recruitment.) Whereas ARS membership grew at an average of 7 per month until February, it grew by 65 in February before falling back to 26 new members in March and 15 new members in April. If these new ARS members were largely attracted by the viewpoint-specific recruitment drive, then notifying ARS of policy discussions directly related to that viewpoint could bias and polarize them. (Even if such notification were done neutrally and in good faith). If other editors were to use this combination of viewpoint-specific recruitment and discussion-linking, Wikipedia could quickly descend into a battleground between viewpoint-specific blocs.

Seems to be the important one, although the other questions cannot be ignored - partly adapted from Randomeran's suggestion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this addition. I suspect this is the most contentious issue. The others aren't so bad: XfD's are not a vote, and ARS usually succeeds on the merits of their improvements to an article. But this one is trickier. Either way, I'm comfortable working out a phrasing that presents both sides of the issue, and then puts it to a fresh group of editors. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Zero for four I'm afraid. This one too seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. I think the real question you're looking for is how can ARS neutrally and within community standards handle posts that sem to be violating canvassing? This has been answered a few times and the correct answer is not deleting anything. If something is waaay over the top I could see adding a {{hat}} and {{hab}} and restating the request neutrally but in my experience none of that was really needed. If anything deserves closer community-wide scrutiny it would be the reaction to perceived canvassing threads and an overly-aggressive stance of mischaracterizing this entire project thereby turning this very talkpage into a battlefield. Nothing at WP:Canvass suggests we pillory people and break out the pitchforks against a monster. Our civility policies are pretty clear we don't do this. Let's pretend those who post notifications here have rather good intentions. The rest is just working to see that those notices are neutral. This really hasn't been that big of an issue until the re-actions became a bit over-heated. Does anybody seriously think you're going to stop ARS, get the project deleted? Stop notifications of other discussions, etc.? It's really not. What remains then is for the very few people who have been posting the "alarming" posts to craft neutral messages and for those who have been raising alarms to really look at if there is any noticable damage if a not is non-NPOV, if so, simply state, this needs to be refactored or otherwise mitigated to ease neutrality concerns. You really don't need the community to spell this out. Likewise we're not about to topic ban anyone from here who is willing to modify their approach towards working with other editors here. I really don't see a need for any RfCs at the moment nor a strong need to elect or appoint one or more people to police or patrol or otherwise watch over this page and project. We will always have newbies who will make mistakes and our mandate is to help them. I would be very embarrassed if they were treated hostily instead bacause they were honestly just trying to save anarticle they felt was worth keeping. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason you think this is a colossal waste of energy is probably because you don't think there's a problem. Obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree, or else this discussion wouldn't have started in the first place. I think you should be entitled to present this as a non-problem, and I think you should do your best to present it as such. But the complaints won't go away just because you declare it a non-problem. It will take a group of independent editors say these four issues are non-problems (or that any one of them are indeed problems, and need to be addressed). Nobody is trying to stop ARS from improving articles, or get ARS deleted, or even get anyone in trouble. It's just about keeping ARS on task, and there are legitimate disagreements about what that task is. That's what an RFC will accomplish. After that, there won't be much to argue about. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi, I'm afraid as I've worked through reading the disputes on this page, I can see that you don't perceive there to be a problem. Unfortunately, that is always the nature of a dispute - one side thinks an action is appropriate, so can't understand why the other side is kicking up a fuss. Unfortunately, there is a dispute over these points, and unless we get our heads out of the sand, you guys will be going around and around in circles over them. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I disagree with your recent use of {{hat}}/{{hab}} to collapse active discussions. You've made your objections to the proposals known. Maybe you could ask Fritzpoll or a neutral uninvolved admin to effect any early closes? Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, my opinion on this is: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it. I think the problem stems from the fact that many self-selected ARS participants want to do both, and their actions with respect to the latter are confused by some as being ARS-sanctioned. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More that ARS is being used as a springboard for the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no more than it's being used by deletionists to distract participants from actually fixing articles, it would seem. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do refrain from tossing off accusations of bad faith or conspiracy if you can't back them up. Not everything undertaken in good faith is a good idea or will have good results, and conversely not everything with bad results was undertaken in bad faith.

If you think anyone is here to purposefully disrupt things, kindly name names and explain how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of ARS working to change policies so that more articles are kept. I see individual editors invested in discussions that certainly may effect those like the recently created bilateral blah-de-da taskforce that will help find a path forward for hundreds of related articles. These types of discussions always go on and it's rather odd to think this or any wikiproject wouldn't be somewhat interested in discussions that affect the work they do. If we are working on, for instance, five bilateral blah-de-da articles and a task force is discussing how to re-organize those articles, it certainly makes sense to bring oursleves up to date on those discussions. Likewise when we had dozens of articles on minor league sports teams and no notability guideline. I think we suggested that discussing if a guideline should exist would make sense. Did we create, run and vote keep everything, hardly. We just tried to address each article on it's own merits because no guideline did exist. We also coached the main editor in soem possible routes forward so they wouldn't end up creating 20-30 articles that were also then mostly deleted. Frankly I see us as often bringing dispassionate editors to subjects they would likely never touch otherwise - I personally have little to no interest in most sports subjects - so helping offer input (here is what policy states, here are options, what makes sense?) can be quite helpful. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record - this again is not can a project be notified issue but how should non-NPOV notifications be effectively handled. I think this section should also close as being repetitious to many previous discussions. Everyone agrees that notifications should be NPOV. No one will get support that projects can't be notified. What remains is how should any project deal with non-NPOV messages. This doesn't require an RfC at all. Seems like some civil and thoughtful suggestion should be discussed that would apply to all projects. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, it might be different if ARS were dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. But what we have now is a group that was assembled by recruiting 300 people with specific views on content and then linking them to content policy discussions. It's pretty obvious what will happen when people get an invite because "you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability", and then they are linked about discussions about notability guidelines. But in principle, this selective-recruitment and discussion-linking shouldn't happen for any content viewpoint and policy. Again, an invite based on a viewpoint isn't polarizing in of itself, but doing that hundreds of times and linking them to a relevant policy discussion is problematic. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually ARS is dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. with the qualifier "on notable subjects". You are presuming that those who work on tagged articles are members and that everyone (or most) were recruited. I wasn't and this project was plenty busy before I showed up. One can theorize that there is some net effect but personally I've not seen any major upswing in participation, articles tagged or discussions swayed greatly and certainly not in any cohesive or organized effort. In fact when the invite tag was first employed it seemed a bit non-neutral and was replaced by a neutral one. That's pretty much what has happened every time something came along that seemed problematic. Getting back on point - any project can be notified of discussion impacting their work. Notices should be kept brief and NPOV. for those that wish to ascribe to inclusionism there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion; likewise Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion may befit those who see a calling to removing items. ARS is neither and has rebuffed either POV. If another seemingly well-intended editor mass invited a pile of editors who ascribed to deletionism ARS would not work to remove them, shame them, coerce or otherwise marginalize them. It is our job as Wikipedians to welcome them. We don't pin badges on anyone accept a welcome tag if they sign up as members. Personally I deal with so many editors and articles I'm rather forced to just treat everything on a case by case basis. Assess it, act accordingly and move on. My experience with some of the questionable postings is that I'm rather immune to pleas of please keep my article or those meanines are trying to delete ____. I think other ARS folks may be along the same lines. Meh, whatever, I'll poke in and see if I can offer anything. We simply aren't to be discounted as the army of like-minded inclusionists as many of these pointy threads would have anyone believe. Are some members? Likely, but I really don't care if they are doing ARS work and helping improve articles. Am I in any way interested in a witch hunt? No. We have the survey idea which seems to be showing support. If we a figure a way to make it happen it could be repeated in a few months then looked at to see if there are repeaters. The goal remains to help editors do better. This proposal can also be ended, IMHO, per WP:Snow. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Snow closing a discussion because only you say so seems a little...off. I think this is the most likely to end up at RfC Fritzpoll (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I really have anything new to say, and I don't think I'm going to persuade you. I'll just say that I think you understate the effect of recruiting 300 people with inclusionist templates. Regardless of how neutrally the invite was phrased, the invites were sent purely to build a roster of people with a specific content view. That bias doesn't really affect article improvement, so I actually agree with you on that much. Regardless of peoples' viewpoint on content, they'll either improve the article to make it meet our guidelines, or they won't. The problem is when a roster narrowly built upon a specific content view is invited to craft our content policy. Not just because of what it means every time that ARS's new roster talks policy, but because of what it means if other content viewpoints organize a roster in the same way. We would essentially have armies and generals, and thus endless wars. You might not see that as legitimate problem, but other people do, including me. So let's put that question to the community. Worst thing that happens is I'm wrong, and there's no problem, and clearly state ARS's new scope. Even though it wouldn't be the result I want, that would be good for everyone because we can get closure, and people will be able to leave each other alone. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

First off you keep misleading that we recruited 300 people. We didn't recruit anyone, a sole editor did. It was agreed that any editor could recruit to any Wikiproject but in response we created a neutral ARS invite template. There is no evidence that the recruitment has had any net effect on discussions and ARS never took place in a recruitment drive. Then we build on this wobbly premise - y'know that all those who are ARS members would be swayed to an inclusionist POV - that these now converted ARS talkpage watchers will suddenly show up and all vote keep or whatever the inclusionist POV on some policy discussion and further that that won't be quickly dismissed as empty votes if that's all they are. ARS scope hasn't grown or even changed - the last RfC simply clarified that TfD (and likely other XfDs) were officially ok. This unfounded worry that POV armies of policy fighters will assembly and rise up is rather pointy and seems if it were sent to any RfC it wouldn't mention ARS at all. We are not a unique Wikiproject just one that a handful of editors strongly object to because of thier disdain against all things "inclusionist" and their concern that ARS is swaying toward some POV because of one editors' work. Again this remains a user conduct issue that most editors are simply not that troubled over. No RfC is needed to address these issues. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who did it, it only matters that the recruitment drive happened, and it does have an impact. And again, if ARS is being singled out for being inclusionist, it's being singled out in the same way that any group with such a viewpoint-specific recruiting drive should be singled out. It's not up to either of us to decide if it's okay. That's why we're having the RFC. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It does matter to clarify that ARS never sanctioned a recruitment drive and this was undertaken by one editor - who, when blocked for it, was unblocked as no canvassing was found to have occurred. No impact or harm has shown to have occurred either. Discussion and XfD are not votes but a consensus process. Volume of votes, in theory that ARS has done any block voting, may have an impact but more likely quality of discussion will be teh greater measure. Even policy decisions that are flawed are, in theory, amended and clarified to fix areas that need correcting. Wikipedia is an organic project - it changes and grows. If a policy is great one year and then needs modificatins we do so. I've yet to see a case where ARS either block voted or otherwise negatively impacted some discussion bringing harm to the encyclopedia and this entire thread is one massive pile of assuming bad faith. If Ikip sucessfully recruited some inclusionists as far as i can tell the worst thing that would happen is they waste some energy casting empty !votes. guess what? That was happening before ARS ever existed and would happen regardless if we were here. The likely net result is encyclopedic content will more likely be kept in some form. I see that as a good thing. Can we move on now to finding actual solutions addressing the actual concerns? -- Banjeboi 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• As with Proposal 2, I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. The editing of the Pro section is fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Revision which neutralizes the context. Throwing gas on an ember is not WP:NPOV, however, dousing the spark is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If we are genuinely trying to find solutions then we should do so neutrally. Both pro and con verbiage should remian neutral. -- Banjeboi 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Once again, I think we should work to represent both sides fairly. But to the degree we respect neutrality, it's to present both sides of the argument fairly, to the degree that they reflect the actual facts and disagreement. I've altered it once again to try to be more neutral, and present both sides. But if there are any outstanding issues, it would be helpful to know what they are. I'd happily rewrite it myself, and think that would be more productive than the "pro" side writing the arguments for both sides. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

30K of copy-pasting from stale discussions

Boldly hatting this thread as a bit pointy and maybe deflecting constructive movement forward off track. Regardless what motivates those posting these issues, they are welcome to make constructive criticism just as any other editor is. Already many changes have been implemented and more are being discussed as a direct result of the concerns being raised. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lets just call a spade a spade there are three issues I see here: Major Conflict of interest. Asking many of these editors what Article Rescue Squadron should or should not do is like asking a spammer how to build the rules on spamming. The edit history of these editors is not full of rescuing articles, it is best represented in attempts to delete/merge articles. Hypocricy and Censorship. Editors who regularly canvas in other projects and discuss policy on other wikiprojects are expecting editors here to follow rules that no other wikiproject does. Here is an example of how FICT is canvassed and discussed on other wikiprojects. WITH ABSOLUTLY NO COMPLAINTS THAT THIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED, not once. Indeed, many of the editors complaining about ARS here, openly and actively canvas and discuss policy in other wikiprojects. Keep in mind that this is only regarding FICT, other, more popular guidelines are 20 times as big. Canvassing/spamming/notification. Policy discussions on other projects Canvassing/spamming/notification In case no one has noticed the notice on top of the page, WP:FICT is currently having an RfC to be confirmed as a guideline here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_34#WP:FICT_confirmation_RfC I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided. This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step. Please address any concerns on WT:FICT. Thank you. --MASEM 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/archive/26#WP:FICT_rewrite Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_8#Please_review_proposed_WP:FICT_guideline Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_63#WP:FICT: I normally would not do this, because of neutrality of the polling, but this is clearly a contentious case as we do seem to have members on both sides here. So I want to note that it is in the process of a final poll being finalized is being put up (but with remark about Wikipeida not being a democracy) and may directly impact some of the articles that were recently merged here, most notably those who were primary protagonists of one of the 3 games: Shion, KOS-MOS, Jr.. KOS-MOS already has enough to qualify for WP:V and WP:GNG, but the others like Ziggy have a lot less on them, but still some minor remarks to show real-world perspective, plus I believe they all have merchandise associated with them as well. ..A Man In Black and Masem responds, with no condemnation of canvassing. There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). Posted same message on: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buffyverse#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_SpongeBob_SquarePants#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dad's_Army#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_4400#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Holby#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yu-Gi-Oh!#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Battlestar_Galactica#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Degrassi#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_17#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Office_(US)#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature/Archive 1#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon/Archive 6#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 25#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 4#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firefly#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stargate/Archive_10#Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dragon_Ball/Archive_7#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_31#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_17#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_Animation/Archive_1#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Bleach#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_task_force/Archive_3#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Square_Enix/archive/3#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Bleach#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Digimon/Archive_11#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Haruhi_Suzumiya#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Gundam/Archive_3#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Heroes/Archive_4#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers/Archive_2#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Seinfeld/Archive_1#WP:FICT_has_been_revised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_20#WP:FICT_update Wikipedia's guideline on the notability of fictional elements has been recently revised. Check out the changes at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and the discussion on the talk page. Remember this guideline is what governs many of the articles regarding characters and items in the Futurama universe so make sure you're familiar with it so we can continue to improve Wikipedia's Futurama articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Futurama#Revisions_to_WP:FICT: Same editor: For those who got sick of trying to follow along, like me, WP:FICT has been demoted from a guideline to a proposed guideline to an essay. So when doing any tagging of character articles, etc for notability issues, it will have to be tagged for general WP:N failure. A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. Similar posts: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_35#Please_review_proposed_WP:FICT_guideline Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 34 #WP:FICT confirmation RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_29#FICT_RfC WP:FICT has been updated significantly. One of the huge issues that will be mentioned by users (coming from the writer) is the sub-article concept; people will want to split off articles that are entirely plot summary and want an exception to the rule because of size issues. The only advice I can give is to trim; allowing entirely in-universe subarticles is a slippery slope Almost as if on queue, a rewrite to lower the standards is being proposed. But let's be realistic; this was to be expected. I might propose wikiproject-specific notability guidelines that can be as strict or more strict than the "central" FICT. — Deckiller 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#Consensus_sought_for_spinout_articles Contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_33#New_WP:FICT #Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_22#New_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_10#New_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_22#New_WP:FICT A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Archive_6#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Park/Archive_1#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Wars/Archive_8#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_9#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_19#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games/Notability#Subarticles As an update, contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_39#Consensus sought for spinout articles Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_18#Consensus sought for spinout articles Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games/Archive_5#Consensus sought for spinout articles Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_34#About_WP:FICT I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion(whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_21#New guideline on fiction: Delete Anime-related articles? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 5#New guideline on fiction: Delete Simpsons-related articles? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_15#New guideline on fiction: Delete Doctor Who-related articles? I invite all present to head on over to WP:Notability (fiction) to look over the proposed guideline, as well as to comment on it. There is currently an RfC on it. This will impact the local project by a large amount. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) To Izno's invite, I add an urge. Please form an opinion and comment here, we need some kind of consensus here, one way or the other. User:Krator (t c) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_45#WP:FICT and # Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_3#WP:FICT # Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_3#WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost/Archive_4#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_3#RFC_on_WP:FICT Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Archive_10#New guideline on fiction: Delete Harry Potter-related articles? For those who didn't know WP:FICT is considering updating their guidelines. Particularly what constitutes a "usable" source once notability has been established could affect a lot off projects under this task force.Jinnai (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Visual_novels/2008#Fiction_guideline_proposal Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#New_guideline_on_fiction:_Delete_HHGTTG-related_articles.3F I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_28#WP:FICT_rewrite A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Coordinators/Archive_1#Discussions_of_note Discussions of note ... 2. The massive discussions involving TV episode article notability are also closely tied to WP:FICT and therefore may impact upon WP Films. 3. Speaking of FICT, might it be worth proposing that characters (or lists of characters) who only make an appearance in a single work of fiction should not have their own articles? ... A guideline would be great since so many people may not be aware of the discussion/guideline. I prefer to use it only for the news section that it has, but will usually defer to other more reliable sources if possible. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/archive/23#Final_Fantasy_VIII:_the_perfect_model Eventually, I will draft a rewrite of WP:FICT and a new MoS entry for Plot Summaries to supplement WAF and FICT. Other loose ends include the Gameplay of Final Fantasy article, which has really stalled in my standbox for quite some time; elevating the Monsters, Minigames, and Character class articles to GA status; and everything else :) I applaud and agree with those sentiments. I would also like to add that I think that all of those music articles that are not game specific may be good within a Albums of Final Fantasy article, or a similar name, so that one would be a GA. Figured I'd bring this to your attention, since I think it's something that affects everyone here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_33#WP:Fictional_Characters_Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Chronicles_of_Narnia_task_force#Request for comment on fictional characters guideline proposal Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Fantasy_task_force#Request for comment on fictional characters guideline proposal Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons/Archive_6#WP:Fictional Characters Guidelines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive13#Request_for_comment_on_fictional_characters_guideline_proposal I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Please do not tarnish the truth of the matter. The new FICT was only rewritten so that it did not contradict the general notability guideline, which is the first, and foremost, thing any article should look to. I would advise people to read the guideline first, as Fairsing's current comment seems to a bit biased on the matter in explaining the situation. Fairsing, do not cry it's the end of the world, just to ensue a panic so you can get your way. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horror/Archive_1#New_guideline_on_fiction:__Delete_horror-related_articles.3F Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons/Forgotten_Realms#New guideline on fiction: Delete FR-related articles? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons/Greyhawk#New guideline on fiction: Delete Greyhawk-related articles? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter/Archive_1 Proposal 4 … Example from WP:Novels newsletter: Current debates Lengths of bibliographies are discussed. Discussion about WP:FICT has spilled over to an RFC for the general notability guideline. I'm inclined to believe that the majority supports WP:FICT, which basically calls for including all useful information here. Radiant_>|< 08:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. — TKD::Talk 10:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_8#Character notability Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 15#Character notability Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_15#Character notability Discussions of FICT rules Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_6#WP:FICT_and_video_game_characters Does WP:CVG have a standing policy about when to make a separate article for a character, and when to mention it in the article of the game the character appears in? Should the standard be different for video game characters, or comparable with other forms of fiction? (I've made the John Galt/Atlas Shrugged argument - that any discussion of John Galt is by necessity a discussion of Atlas Shrugged, and belongs in the Atlas Shrugged article - to User:A Link to the Past, as it's the example Wikipedia:Cruft uses, but he was unmoved.) A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_30#Some_merging_input (←) I've put a request for input over in the talk page for WP:FICT. This is the policy we're having issue with in how it applies to these two articles, so they're going to have the best input on it. --Masem 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_23#Notability: Based on the suggestion of MrMurph101, maybe we should finally come up with a guideline for notability. A set of criteria that wrestlers/promotions/bookers/etc. have to pass in order to have articles. A few quick ones I think most people would agree with: Anybody who has won the WWE Championship/World Heavyweight Championship (for wrestlers) Anybody in the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame (for wrestlers) Winning King of the Ring or the Royal Rumble (for wrestlers) Winning the WWE Women's Championship (for females and Hervina :) ) My possible additions: "Wrestled in 3 or more pay per view events" (main card only, not dark matches) (modern workers) "Held multiple top belts in regional promotions" (Mostly aimed at pre-WWF takeover era wrestlers, but maybe can apply to more recent folks too, in areas like Australia, Puerto Rico and the like, where our knowledge might be more lacking) I can be of help when information about Puerto Rico is needed, just leave me a message on my talk page if you need to find info about a certain Puerto Rican wrestler and I will find it. The problem with us discussing what we think is notable is that we, as a project, don't get to decide what is notable, Wikipedia does. The problem with notability is that some people want wrestlers to go by WP:BIO for atheletes while others want to go by WP:BIO for entertainers while yet others want to go by WP:FICT. If we are truly going to discuss the notability of pro wrestlers it should be done on the talk page at WP:BIO. Now, we could talk about it here to get consensus amongst ourselves, but that is not going to change the problems we are already experiencing. Theophilus75 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines/Archive_1#Cleanup_of_.22Content.22_guidelines_section Hi everyone. As per our discussion before, I've attempted to clean up the content guidelines. I do not want to change the meaning or scope of the current guidelines. My proposal should ONLY improve organization and clarity, while preserving the current guidelines in meaning and scope. You can see my proposal at User talk:Randomran/guidelinework. ... I made a couple of small changes, as to make some of the last ones read descriptively instead of prescriptively and also added in WP:FICT (I know it's listed proposed, but I doubt it will remain that way for longer). On that issue, the first "do not" is a bit against this as worded, though I don't think the intent is there in this fashion. Per FICT, non-notable lists of major/minor/recurring characters from a game or series is appropriate if the main article becomes too long, as long as it remains reasonably bounded and otherwise meet all other aspects for articles. We want to discourage this of course, particularly for single-shot games, but it is not a hard limitation, and recognizes that we're still balancing inclusionists/deletionists wars here. --MASEM 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the revisions, which I support. These are guidelines that should be generally followed, but there can be exceptions if they're reasonably justified. Keep the feedback coming. (If someone wants to respond to the questions I asked Kariteh above, that would also be appreciated.) Randomran (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Ready to implement the proposed changes? The only remaining criticism is about the homebrew stuff. If someone wants to change the current official guidelines, I would back them. At which point, I'll change the proposed guidelines to match. I don't want this clean-up to change the meaning. I'm very focused on that. So if someone wants to change the meaning, they should do it before (or after) the clean-up -- not during. Are there any other concerns with the proposed changes? Randomran (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre/Archive_4#Character_Lists_in_Play_Articles Note the below guidelines were developed through a discussion among various editors that is now archived in Archive number 4. The current proposal and the guidelines are still open for discussion and change. All opinions welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) ... Guideline Proposal 1: When possible, articles on plays should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. Further information about the characters, including role originators or other performances should be included in a separate section such as "Notable Performances" or in a separate article such as "Characters in Hamlet". Guideline Proposal 2: When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. Guideline Proposal 3: It is not necessary to have a guideline on character lists. Editors are capable of making the decision about whether to include such a list and how best to structure it for the specific topic under consideration on their own. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_32#Primary_sources_sufficient.3F: This is a chestnut that fell from the tree during the AfD for Ego. The debate can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_the_Living_Planet One user in particular - Blast Ulna - has been rather dogged and emotive about the issue. Much of his argument is flawed, but I'd like to try and establish a ruling on this as it does require clarification. From the debate: The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages. Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series? Or because a character appeared in over 3 decades of comics and never had an appearance in an animated TV series? Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support. The comics, therefore are the primary sources in terms of appearances and events. Yes, series such as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe comes with a flawed set of statistics, but it does support the previously mentioned whens/whats/hows. ... I'm burned out on notability. It was probably the worst thing I ever did. I cannot count the number of people who now tell me I have no idea what notability means whilst parroting my words back at me. I think it is best politely ignored, although there is a huge sandstorm raging at WP:FICT if anyone wants to get involved. People are talking about seeing which pages the current formula excludes and whether they are the sort of pages worth including anyway. I think the best goal is to aim for FA. Once you get an article there, it's pretty much bound to be included. I would like to say something about how people are using WP:FICT is being abused for mass deletions. WP:FICT has recently been disputed and is "not set in stone". Recently members have been using it as a scapegoat to delete articles, which I find in repulsive. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_21#Talk_at_WP:FICT it seems that the guideline will be explictly stating my opinion i had months ago, that as sub-articles of the main topic, notability is not an issue for individual species articles. once the arbcom case is settled and FICT is undisputed, i plan to take this whole mess to RFC. i opt for later rather than sooner b/c i think it will give people time to think about the guideline - just think, not discuss. - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_34#Buffy trades: We could raise it at WT:FICT but if you read WP:FICT they are pretty obviously against this and the recommendation is to merge into some kind of list article. Anyway my two cents. (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_23#Let.27s_settle_the_plot_thing_once_and_for_all: I received an objection on that count, and these Wikipedia principles were invoked (listed with my counterarguments): WP:NOTE (making good use of wikibooks): "...an encyclopedia article about the work of fiction on Wikipedia giving a brief outline, [then chapters on Wikibooks, then full text on Wikisource, etc.)..." This one is laughable. An article can't be comprehensive if it castrates summaries into brief outlines with a link to Wikisource. You would not summarize Moby Dick with a bulleted list of ten or 15 bullets. On that note, this suggestion hilarious sounds like an admonition to use lists, which is a cardinal sin! Also, check existing FAs on literary works. Whether Adventures of TinTin or Lord of the Rings, several paragraphs of in-universe information exist to provide a comprehensive understand of the plot and characters. WP:WAF (criticizing in-universe styles) The article's out-of-universe information dwarfs the plot summary, so this objection was a little errant. WP:FICT "...plot summaries should be kept reasonably short..." There's the stickler and the root of the argument. I know the foxes petitioning to guard the hen house will not be pursuaded. "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Ikip (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ...is that seriously a post from October 2005? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Nobody wants a conflict of interest. That's why we're putting the issue to an independent audience. The worst thing that happens for either of us is that one of us gets an outcome we don't like. But the outcome will be fair if we represent both sides of the issue, and keep the "foxes" (on both sides) from circling the henhouse. When the time comes, we'll let the dogs decide. You will have your audience, but it will be an independent one. Randomran (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Surely this page is more suited to discussing the way forward for the ARS in 2009 rather than what some editors may have thought about other matters four years ago? pablohablo. 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC) That's why I hope more will take notice and help in threads like the one below, where I propose a contest. We really need to be getting back to rescuing articles already. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to open the RfC

Right, I think we have enough discussion here to establish opening an RfC on Proposals 2 and 4. I'm not sure about the status of Proposal 1 since it has been reopened, but a prior RfC has just concluded. I'd suggest doing the RfC on an ARS subpage at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/RfC May 2009 or similar, listing at WP:RFC, and notifying at WP:VPP and on WP:CENT as well as including a link on this page. I'd establish that there is no need for individual editors to be contacted on this - for a neutral outside view, we need to not notify any individual directly. After a week or two, we can ask a neutral admin (not me, I hasten to add) to close the discussion on the RfC and see what the consensus is. That is, not a poll, although a straw poll format might be adopted. Any thoughts before I go ahead and do this? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed This remains another disruption to this Wikiproject and needs to stop. POV against inclusionism is fine on individual userpages but thi sWikiproject remains neutral welcoming all editors. If you can't see that targetting ARS in this fashion is divisive then I see pushing for malformed RfC's as more disruption. The issue has always been about specific editor's conduct. The few who engaged in posting non-neutral messages and those who acted rather incivilly towards them. Wasting the community energy on - yet another - RfC is not a constructive way forward and none of the proposals addressed the core issue. Likewise an RfC singling out any Wikiproject is doomed to failure. We don't make special rules as such. We have policies that notices should be neutral. We have policies on civility. If you want to discuss if Wikiprojects can be notified of policy discussion (hint: the answer is yes) you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council if an RfC would be an appropriate use of energy on this. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to Benjiboi: ARS simply closing the issue is not really fair, and won't really work. The issue will continue to rise every time a notice is posted, and part of the goal here is to get closure. If this RFC is "doomed to failure", then let it fail on its own merits in front of an independent group of Wikipedians. But there's a reasonable basis to treat ARS as something other than "just another Wikiproject", especially in light of its scope as it is defined on the main page, and the recent recruiting tactics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
    • Well continually harassing any Wikiproject is also unfair. You can drop the recruiting accusation as that was a single independent editor and steps were taken to ensure a neutral invite template representing the group was created. ARS has been extremely patient with a small group of editors disrupting and making pointy comments and imposing their view on what this project should or should not do. If any of this had been handled civilly and neutrally we would only be discussing constructive solutions. Instead a rather pointy RfC in various incarnations has been posited - each one missing the entire core concern and suggesting that ARS as a group is responsible for a few members actions and therefore we all must pay dearly by entertaining this charade of accusations. Non-neutral posts have always been and always will be posted by folks innocently or not to various Wikiprojects. We should handle them civilly per policy. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I appreciate Fritzpoll trying to treat both sides fairly and manage this. The only thing I'd add is give us a couple of days to get closure on issue 1, because I'm not sure it was really re-opened for any good reason. Also, I'd add that we really don't need to hear from AMiB and the other people who participated in the AN/Is against ikip, and we don't really need to hear from ARS either. We know how they feel. Let's see how this looks to neutral outside observers. The last thing I'd want is to watch the ARS turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

God lord Randomran, you are not neutral this, you never have been. Stop saying you are. Everytime I explain why you are not neutral you accuse me of bad faith. Do we need this drama reapeated here again? Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I must agree a bit with Ikip here. ARS detractors have turned this talkpage into the very toxic battleground that is repeatedly suggested as a concern. Is it any wonder that those of us who have invested energy into improving the work we do are quite over the limit of tolerance on this? Really, if you want to help rescue content please do that, if you don't then maybe one of the hundreds of other WP:Wikiprojects will suit your interestes better. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as well as if anything, it is time to continue rescuing articles! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unneccessary RFC, one which acts to bring editors to a battleground where none need exist. Disruption of the project is to be avoided. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment for what it's worth, the RFC shouldn't involve any of us here. So we can already get back to editing articles while a group of independent, unaffiliated editors deal with it. When the RFC finishes, so will the drama. There's something to be said for getting someone neutral to sign off on whether or not there's a problem. There is no value to preventing a good faith discussion from taking place. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This is silly that the members of a project should not be involved in the RFC of the project. Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ditto. That's rather laughable that a RfC wanting to sanction ARS in some way would be launched yet some ARS members would be disinvited. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There are problems with the ARS (mainly with how it is used by some editors, and how most other regulars don't see a problem with these attempts, even if they aren't influenced by them) which taint their good work in rescuing content (articles, no idea if anything else has ever been rescued). The problems this project (or some of the most vocal editors of it) has with scrutiny (as evidenced by the opposition to this RfC, and the suggestions made earlier to ban a critic from this page and to remove all discussions of canvassing, without adressing the canvassing itself) is evidence of it becoming a group which excludes itself from the normal workings of the encyclopedia as a collaborative effort and tries to suppress all dissenting viewpoints. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That is your POV and I believe it is at least slightly off. No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK or that ARS would have approved the recruiting that took place. And no one is suggesting that the issues can't be addressed in a civil and constructive manner. This simply isn't the way to do it. Any concerns of a few editors "taint"ing ARS' "good work" pale compared to the negative tainting of ARS accross multiple forums and the massive disruption to our work here. The only reason that ARS critic was being considered for a ban was behavior, not for criticism. Constructive efforts to address canvassing have actually been underway offline as ARS' own talkpage was turned into a battleground by a handful of critics. No one has suggested that ARS be treated any special or different from other Wikiprojects except by those very same critics who seem to think this Wikiproject should be banned in some way from XfD or policy discussions etc. That we oppose dissenting viepoints is rather laughable as well. Ikips voluminous suggestions have a reasonable success rate but we don't follow them or anyone else's POV lockstep at all. If it' a good idea and may help it is considered and quite a few proposals have positiviely impacted Wikipedia in addition to the hundreds of rescues we've been involved in. The only thing keeping us from implementing more at this point is that very same group of editors who seem determined to make a much bigger deal out of a handful(?) of rather non-neutral posts or other posts they deemed as canvassing. I'm glad we've recorded all these posts in one place so we have them for future reference. Sadly it seems fairly obvious that no matter what ARS does as a group there will be detractors anxious to find fault rather then work toward equitable solutions that remain civil and neutral. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE the issues above have gotten less and less urgent as the days have goes on. Ikip (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop shouting? You did it in dozens of AFD's recently, you do it here as well. It is not helpful. As for the issues being urgent or not: they are recurring, sometimes in rapid succession, sometimes dormant for a while. Fram (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Back to the original question. In the above 50 pages, I count only three reasons editors gave that ARS should not appreciate all of the benefits and priveleges of a wikiproject.

1. Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it...This is manifestly untrue of this page.
2. I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't...I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here.
3. We are not a wikiproject

1. Response one: #South Park experts
2. Response two: Has anyone here ever done the same thing as answer #2 has said? The editor says he would do this, but has anyone? I see "come and keep x" a lot in other wikiprojects, without a signal word of criticism. I am sure there is some criticism somewhere, for example if a inclusionist editor posts on a deletionist leaning wikiproject. But it isn't widespread. Would editors be happy if we refactored request to help to be more neutral?
3. Response three: the only difference is we are not a wikiproject in name.

Ikip (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re 2: You might want to have a look at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. It has many AfD notifications, which typically lead to project members outnumbering the other AfD participants. The difference is that for WP:MATH members the questions are normally: "What is it? Where can we find out more? Is it notable?" As a result, the project members are often divided, but often seem to block vote one way or the other. Sometimes this does lead to suspicion and accusations similar to those which this project faces. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikiprojects can be created or destroyed rather easily. The ARS should not be a Wikiproject, and to the extent that it "behaves" like a Wikiproject, those behaviours should be ended. The cameraderie (which is pretty minimal, anyways) or shared sense of identity makes ARS a target of people who want to say "See? Look, rabid inclusionists!"--becoming a clique of that sort only damages ARS. ARS should be viewed as an institution like MedCab or 3O, where everyone comes to find the AfD's that could use specific improvements, generally sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Randomran: I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists. But the difference between ARS and other WikiProjects is that ARS has always had a special status. When it was created, there were worries that it would become nothing more than an inclusionist lobby group. But that was repeatedly refuted by editors -- across the inclusion spectrum by the way -- who pointed out two reasons why ARS was not an inclusionist lobby group:
  1. The project was confined in scope to improving articles tagged for deletion. (Which everyone agreed with.)
  2. The memberlist is not dominantly inclusionist. (Which a majority of people agreed with.)

On occasion the group spent more time talking at AFD than improving articles. But this was rare enough to be tolerable, and the closing admin could usually ignore the "well-researched, well-verified" !votes when they saw an article with nothing more than primary and self-published sources. This was a small inconvenience considering that ARS was able to save dozens of articles on their merits. Most people across the inclusion spectrum celebrated ARS, and even deletionists had to accept that when an article improved.

ARS has fundamentally changed in two ways. The first is that you contacted around three hundred editors who had inclusionist templates and asked them to join ARS. The second is that the group has been linking to other discussions that don't involve specific articles up for deletion, at a rate that is impossible to ignore. Now, it's impossible to undo the inclusionist recruitment drive, which itself is problematic. But even then, the drama would probably go away if ARS volunterily kept its original scope of tagging articles up for AFD, and improving them, and even participating in AFDs to the extent that they understand that it's not a vote. But when it starts to trickle into policy discussions, joining in discussions at other WikiProjects, or other centralized discussions that aren't about an article up for deletion, you can understand how this undermines the good will that ARS previously enjoyed. If you can't, then I think the only answer is to construct an RFC where we limit input to people who aren't tight with ARS, ikip, or AMiB for that matter. (Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too.) Randomran (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First, as you wrote on my talk page:

"I just want to chime in here and say we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith." [7] (although I never used the term "bad faith")

I would appreciate if you strike:

"I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists."

One, this is not the case (see next point for example), and two, we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith. I think we can agree that such comments are not helpful.

Second, I removed any mention of another editor's behavior,[8] even going so far as refactoring out the comments, because of a suggestion of other editors. I would appreciate the same courtesy [More].

Third, RE: "Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too"

I don't blame you for saying you are neutral, it makes your credibilty stronger to truly uninvoled editors.

WP:FICT was a project which Radorman was heavily involved with and supported. During the WP:FICT WP:RFC I notified several article talk pages that their was a RFC, with a neutral message. I took the unprecendented step of getting pre-approval from two admins before posting the message. WP:FICT had a direct effect on 25% of wikipedia, it would have deleted or merged thousands of articles. Ultimately WP:FICT failed for the third time.

Randorman, your comments here and on my talk page remind me of this very igenous RFC posting all over again. Ikip (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious - Ikip, what does "lessen the scope of Nobility" mean?

laterOh, you've deleted it already. It's here: Pixelface is an editor who has attempted to lessen the scope of Nobility as Randomran attempts to increase it.

Just wondering what exactly you're implying re Randomran and, more importantly, why it would have any bearing on this discussion. pablo_hablo. 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, a little disengous Pablomismo, I decided this was not relevant, and removed it on 18:52, 10 May 2009.

You post 22 minutes later at 19:14, 10 May 2009, when the sentence was long gone. At 19:41, 10 May 2009 you post the "later" comment.[9] Ikip (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ikip, you need to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. This is about the function of ARS. For the record, you misstate my view on notability, because I've tried to reduce it, expand it, and keep it the same at different times on different issues. You also misstate my role at WP:FICT, where I spent most of my time mediatinng between inclusionists and deletionists because I support reducing the scope of notability in specific cases, such as fiction. But most of all, bringing it up is completely irrelevant. I'd feel the exact same way if AMiB contacted 200 deletionists to join some Wikipedia space, and then other people started linking to various policy discussions. Not that it's an act in bad faith, but it's an act that at best will accidentally disrupt Wikipedia and turn it into a battleground. I don't want to see either side "arming up", and the truth is that if ARS is allowed to do this, it won't be long before the other side arms up too. Then we'll never get anywhere.

The same is true if you try to make this about peoples' views of inclusion or deletion. We'll never get anywhere. You have other inclusionists who are telling you that it would be better if ARS focused on just articles, and you have deletionists who say to let this go. This is a legitimate area of disagreement. An indepenent RFC will allow us to settle the issue, without getting into the heated and accusatory stuff that other editors were throwing at you. This isn't about your viewpoint, my viewpoint, or even whether anyone broke any rules. It's about the appropriate role of ARS, knowing that the recruitment is what it is. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are absolutely right; by the time I had read the lengthy Rfc that you linked you had already deleted that comment, and I didn't notice it was gone. I don't think that you could call that disengous, however (well you could, but I wouldn't). pablo_hablo. 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, if you keep saying something long enough will people start believing it? I never accused you of bad faith. You stated that you wanted to explore the history of this page, well, our history and how you came here is part of how others can understand the full situation. Explain this is not bad faith. Bad faith is accusing an editor of this. It troubles me when this is a case of hyprocricy and attempts at censorship. Ikip (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you used words like "hypocrisy" and "conflict of interest". You examined my claim that I'm neither an inclusionist (like you) or deletionist (like AMiB), and offered false statements that I supported a proposal to delete more fiction articles than are currently deleted under the WP:GNG. I keep trying to talk about the appropriateness of certain recruiting-and-discussion tactics -- regardless of whether these tactics are employed by deletionists or inclusionists -- and you keep suggesting that this is secretly an effort to target your content viewpoint. To me, that seems like you're accusing a lot of people of bad faith. But maybe we're just on the wrong foot, and need to get back on the right one.

1. Is the pending RFC totally hypocritical, or do some people believe in good faith that the scope of ARS is unique and fundamentally different from a WikiProject?
2. Is the pending RFC about whether selective-recruitment followed by discussion-linking should be stopped, or is it secretly an effort to hamstring people based on their views of article content?

There are answers to both questions that assume good faith, and there are answers that don't. If you want to, you can clear that up right now. Randomran (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably am not the most welcome person to sound off on this, but I'm going to anyway. The main problem in perception that the ARS has is not that it doesn't enjoy the benefits and privileges of other Wikiprojects, but that in fact it has one that others do not. As far as I'm aware, ARS is the only Wikiproject whose tag goes on the article page rather than the talk page. While it may not functionally make much difference, as it is likely to get categorized anyway, more than anything else this is your big problem with the perception that you're simply "rabid inclusionists". --BlueSquadronRaven 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• It also has an unlimited scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Counterexample: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. All of the various cleanup-XYZ templates go on articles. But where the template goes is not the issue at hand, nor even one that has been brought up as a factor. (The template isn't even central to rescuing articles. I have two articles currently in mind for rescue that weren't, with one still not being, tagged with the template at all.) The issue at hand is that because of some editors who want a battleground, ARS is being turned into one, and being an ARS "member" is diverging from being someone who actually rescues articles, to the extent that the battlegrounders are now actively attempting to drive away from the ARS people whose focus is working on articles. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise, I recently helped rescue one article as a merge, another as a cleanup and not commenting at the AfD, and an image (let's not go there yet!), none of which were tagged for Rescue. Tagging articles helps "rally the troops", but isn't one hundred per cent necessary, nor is a lot of the back and forth we've been experiencing lately. We're most effective when we're lurking at AfD'd articles. Radiopathy •talk• 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag

In an effort toward constructive solutions, appropriate for any Wikiproject, I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag to specifically look for "empty" !votes. The AfD's themselves could have had any end result and the votes themselves only have to be arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. All those identified (no regard to being ARS affiliated or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities. No pillory needed, just positive and constructive criticism that woud certianly benefit all concerned. If approved in theory, specifics would be metted out based on if bots or hand counting methods were used.

Note: Please keep comments concise and on point.

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This should provide a useful pointer of what is actually happening at Afd rather than relying on subjective perceptions. (I'd actually be in favour of a survey of the "!vote quality" for want of a better term across all Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) pablo_hablo. 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support: this is a decent idea. It will show where ARS is effective, and show areas where ARS can improve its effectiveness. It may be hard since many articles tagged for rescue are ultimately deleted, though. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• You would have to also look to see how in the discussions actually edited the articles as well, though, no? And how can you do that without undeleting the articles? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually I think we are only looking at quality of !votes on the AfD; if someone edited the article in some way is also not the issue on this proposal - just poorly casted !votes. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I would hope such a thing works both way, i.e. it is not just about ARS members saying to "keep" but also those who say "delete as cruft" and the like who have no mainspace edits to the articles or show no sign of looking for sources. Sometimes I notice trends like what I reported here, but other times we don't always pick up on the indiscriminate copy and paste "delete per noms" that are basically "delete all articles on fictional characters" or "delete all articles on bilateral relations", without considering their individual merits. Even I will argued to delete some fictional character articles, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. It's the indiscriminate approach that is a concern. Just because an article is rescue templated doesn't mean it can be rescue and at the same time, just because it's on bilateral relations or about a fictional elements doesn't mean it can't be rescue as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey now, I called WP:DUCK on the nominator days earlier [10] for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mibbit... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, it should highlight all empty !votes. pablo_hablo. 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• weak oppose to oppose The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ikip (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • One of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{rescue}} tag attracts poor !votes. This would help address the issue but do so neutrally. Neither targeting nor excluding any editors but simply on improving the atmosphere at AfDs. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Who's to say that the AFD template itself doesn't attract weak "votes"? We have, after all, had "arguments to avoid" to style votes long before the ARS and certainly in AfDs in which the ARS is not involved. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's true, and arguments to avoid are regularly bandied about at Afd. But I think the intention here is to find empirical evidence of whether adding the {{rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. pablo_hablo. 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I wonder if it encourages some to make bogus delete "votes" as I have seen a few times now where someone makes a joke about it being tagged for rescue in a delete "vote" that doesn't really seem to focus on the actual article itself. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
        • But no other wikiproject has to go through such scrutinty. We should include WP:VG, for example in this study, and maybe one other, say warhammer. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Permission is not required for this. Per WP:BOLD, if you think this is a good idea then go for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was looking to find constructive solutions and work toward finding common ground. If we find a bot way of doing this as well that may be useful for a wider scope. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Bots that analyze (as opposed to bots that do things) don't need any special permission, I believe. Someone just needs to do this, if they want it done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would say nothing about vote-stacking, nothing about this project, and would just disenfranchise the opinion of people who haven't realised that they're required to state the bleeding obvious in order to not be disenfranchised. Rebecca (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support with Modifications In order for a comparison to be valid, it would be better to include not just "rescue" tagged AfD's, but a much broader selection of AfD's. Only then can one see if the tag attracts more improvements than "empty" votes. Note that I do would like to see "keep per improvement" and "keep per sourcing found" votes called out separately. I call them substantial votes, but realize that others might not. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Wrong focus Of more interest is the extent to which the articles have changed while the rescue template is up. Of course this can only be conducted on articles that are kept. And of course either study can be conducted by any editor willing to put in the work. Taemyr (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is an interesting question too. Either would be illuminating. Randomran (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not looking to do a big ol' comparison per se but just identify empty !voters who may also be ARS members (official or not) who should be coached to improve. For neutrality all empty !voters should be contacted with the same message. The stated concern is empty "keep" !votes associated with ARS. If those are stopped then that's a step in the right direction, right? And if we also help stop other empty votes then even better. In thinking on this further I'm not sure a bot would be able to determine all this so it may have to be the human bots instead. or perhaps an initial survey to see what the empty !votes are and extrapolate those findings for a bot. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that the worst thing that happens is we find a few specific instances where articles aren't being improved. That's information that we can use to teach some members of ARS to be as effective as its best members. If people do a better job of improving articles, aren't we helping ARS achieve its purpose, and ultimately Wikipedia's? Randomran (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This survey wouldn't address that, only empty !votes at AfD. And the hall of fame list is majorly outdated; we've had hundreds of rescues since then but no clear idea how best to capture that and strycture the chart to express that. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Err, I think that's what I meant. We'll find a few instances of empty !votes. That's just a way to help people make more effective arguments, and contribute to improving the article in ways that will help rescue, and help Wikipedia. There's really no downside, assuming a few other editors have the time and energy to do the analysis. Randomran (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I support but only because I can't think of a better word. It sounds like a great idea and I hope that it gets completed but I don't really have any interest in participating. OlYeller^Talktome 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, excellent idea. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support to survey all empty !votes, as they are sadly just as likely to be found in terse delete opinions as they might in terse keeps. I recently worked on an article that was nommed as an unreleased future film that failed Crystal. The first several !votes were all delete as crystal, or delte as unreleased, etc... following in the footsteps of the nom. I spent 5 minutes in deiligent search and found that the film had not only been released the year previous, but that it had won several festival awards and received significant coverage. My squawking about poor WP:BEFORE starts to sound like bad faith in what would be hoped is a good faith nomination, but I have seen this happen far too many times. Its beyond frustrating. There has to be some way to curtail continued lack of or sloppy use of BEFORE, or lack of consideration of WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, or following the instructions at WP:DEL. If this survey helps underscore poor !votes and results in suggested solutions, I am all for looking into the situation and I'd like this survey to have a wider scope. Time to open wiki-school and wiki refresher courses. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest 2?

See Wikipedia:Article rescue contest. What a splendid idea! Why not start a Wikipedia:Article rescue contest II (after all it has been four years since the first, so in the spirit of the olympics...)? Let's focus on something that is simultaneously fun, rewarding, and constructive! Not opposed to Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2 or Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2009 or something as an alternative name. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. How would it work? Randomran (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose like the first one, no? I can tell from such discussions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (film) (with rescue credit due mostly to Collectonian, I think?) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations (well, I think I deserve the lionshare of credit on this one! :)) that editors do have a motivation to rescue the rescue templated articles, so I do not see why they would not be interested in such a thing as an added incentive and good spirited competition. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the first one, and I guess I wasn't clear on everything. Would we start rescuing articles on some certain date and keep track of our efforts over a few weeks, or would editors begin submitting articles they've rescued over the years to see which ones are the most improved? Randomran (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to see things as moving forward, so rather than focus on ones rescued in the past for which we can already claim say the little life preservers I have on the top of my talk page, let's focus on ones currently under discussion or that will be and yes, we can set some target date. The ARS was founded on July 13th, so it can be an anniversary event say between now and then. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think a race to see who can do the most or the fastest is always fun. But it may also be fun to see if people can take at-risk articles to GA or even FA status. It's very satisfying when you turn someone else's garbage into Wikipedia's treasure. There's a lot of different ways to approach a contest. But even though it's a competition, it's probably best to think of a format that will maximize the benefit for Wikipedia and its overall spirit of collaboration. Randomran (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First, let's agree on the name, i.e. which redlink to make blue above and then I will gladly began drafting the contest. As the proposer here, I would see my own role being as helping draft the proposal and just helping out on all the various articles rather than being a judge or contestant, although I would rather have a simple say 6 day vote open to all ARS members than a judgement deal. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of those would be a good idea. Let's get some feedback from the others. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. There is/was? something called a bounty board as well on here, maybe a rescue bounty board would be another motivating factor too. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Once the current drama dies down I would support this. It may make sense to dovetail with building up our "How to rescue" page to assist newbies as well as guide non-newbies towards building GA level articles. For continuity for future use it may make sense as well to start it July 1 so it can cover half of 2009 and a new contest can cover the first half of 2010. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Will the drama ever die down? I say start the contest now A Nobody, knowing you will be doing the majority of the work. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, but I would like us to agree on a name for it first. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2? Be Bold, create it, we can always rename it later. Ikip (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have started it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 2 year aniversary, you are starting a annual trend ! Ikip (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, annual would suggest we do it every year; that first contest was I think back in 2005, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect I suggest starting it July 1 so the focus can be on a 6-month article improvement contest and not on ARS' anniversary. In promoting it we can advertise it as a way to mark our anniversary. Also rather than yearlong contests I wonder if two +-month contests a year make sense to attrack those (like myself) who may not be into a year-long commitment or repel those who show up mid-year to a contest that is half-over, etc. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Article Purgatory" proposal at WT:AfD

Please see my idea/proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#ARSify.3F Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

interesting suggestion. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola AfD

Sources for whomever wants to deal with the Nuvola AfD:

• Google Books: nuvola icon
• Debian: Nuvola packages
• Ubuntu: Nuvola packages
• Gentoo: Nuvola packages
• Mandriva: kde-icons-nuvola
• Mandriva: nagios-theme-nuvola
• FreeBSD Ports: kde-icons-nuvola

--Tothwolf (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are just places to download various versions of the Nuvola package. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I will help you out. I will try to see what I can do. template used: {{findsources3|Nuvola icon}}

For Nuvola icon: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

For Nuvola: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I messaged you some common tools which may help also.

Ikip (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually those are not download links at all, they link to package information for various Linux distributions and the FreeBSD ports tree. Those are valid refs to establish WP:N in showing that this icon set is included in multiple open source operating systems. These are pretty standard refs for Open Source Software articles when establishing notability for a particular software package. The first link to Google Books pulls up multiple books with information on the Nuvola icon set. I've got my hands full right now so I really don't have time to work on the article or play a game of keep vs delete in that AfD. Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we move this to that AfD? -- Banjeboi 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this person is asking for help, let everyone at ARS see it. I have a difficult time with this article. Hard to find sources. Ikip (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)