Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

ARS tools subpage?

Looking for suggestions here. I think we have a number of tools suggested in various threads above but I think we should look to cleaning up this talkpage a bit. I wonder if a "Tools" subpage might be helpful - not sure if that's the best name. My hopes is that we'll end up workshopping some into testing and approval. Others that are mothballed can be saved for future reference of ideas that didn't fly as of yet. Idea if "tools" is the best title? Any objections or major plot flaws? My hope is we could clear this talkpage a bit and could simply point to sections on that subpage when we wanted to talk about items. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to put a rescue tag on a guideline page?

On April 9th, a significant part of the notability(fiction) guideline was changed by a relatively small number of people. I believe this page needs some rescuing folks. Otherwise, every single character page out there, can now be deleted. So I started a strawpoll to have it added back in. Our objective is to save pages, but there is no possible way to do that when a handful of people go and change the guidelines, without most people noticing, that now make that impossible. Dream Focus 09:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If the page is at XfD then maybe, if it's not and the issue is the guideline is degrading then you need to look to dispute resolution techniques. If an RfC or other centralised discussion starts up then let us know. Notability guidelines are, as far as I'm aware, often in flux. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So, this time, I tried to warn the user on his talk page for the spam. He disagreed that this is spamming (since he isn't advertising anything, or so he claims, but at the same time posts a link to a straw poll for something he thinks is worth rescuing...). And again, other editors here have no problem with such tactics. Fram (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Links removed, text left for coherence. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it a guideline, which it isn't, there no guidelines for fiction yet. Had their been one, and it had been changed in such a way, it would've been perfectly valid to post it here, since it does affect the mission of the Rescue Squadron, and our ability to rescue articles. Dream Focus 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There was one, a long time ago. It wasn't really a notability guideline the way we have now, and it has been overtaken by events.

No guideline I can think of would impair anyone's ability to clean up badly written prose, or find good references in published sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PLAGIARISM - a draft guideline for which there was an attempt to promote today but which I reverted. On the face of it, it is non-controversial but then why do we need a guideline for it? But one of my concerns is that it makes it more difficult for editors to write from good sources and so they are trapped between the rock of WP:OR and the hard place of WP:PLAGIARISM. The more such guidelines that exist, the harder it is to get anything written at all, because there will always be some guideline or policy that the nay-sayers can use to attack it. The ARS might usefully review all putative policies and guidelines as we tend to have good experience how they might affect matters at the sharp-end: WP:AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Fram, this message - Please don't WP:SPAM your straw polls to unrelated but supposedly sympathetic to yourviewpoint projects, as you did here - is far from civil and is wholly innappropriate. A Man In Black, removing links to a diff (why on earth?) and to a straw poll preventing others from deciding for themselves the merit of these issues is antagonistic, uncooperative and as has been pointed out previously, completely unneeded. In short it feels like you're bullying this editor instead of helping them. If I had to pick the most pressing policy I would use civility. Not sure if you honestly believe some harm will come from a link on this page but that hasn't been proven yet and seems quite unrealistic, so I'm inclined to just ignore such posts. Please desist from edit warring here. It's disruptive to this project. -- Banjeboi 12:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you just love it? Posting here is bad, posting on their talk page (as suggested before) is bad as well, and it is always bullying (if it isn't drama, unconstructive, public humiliation, or any of the other "civil" comments you have directed to me in the recent past). Benjiboi, if something is canvassing is not decided by the fact that some harm came from it or not, but from the intention, the message combined with the audience. The ARS has no special relationship to WP:FICT at all, so there is no reason at all to send a message about a straw poll on WP:FICT to this talk page. We are stil discussing whether other deletion discussion are within the scope of the ARS, but now we have an editor claiming that "I believe this page needs some rescuing folks." about a page which is not up for deletion at all, and which hasn't been an accepted guideline for over a year at least. If the Wikipedia policies and guidelines would be changed in such a way that a class of articles which were previously kept are now deleted, then the ARS should adapt to that, not try as a group to change that again. The ARS is about rescuing those articles which can be improved so that they meet all applicable guidelines and policies, not about creating or keeping guidelines and policies so that the preferred articles of editor X can be kept. So my message to DreamFocus was short, to the point, and appropriate, and I don't see what's uncivil about it, except the basic fact of pointing out someone's errors. ButI do love the irony of first repeatedly stating that I should not reply to posts on this page I consider inappropriate, here on this page but on the usertalk pageinvolved, when you then reply to a post I made on a user talk page, with a "public shaming" post here. Practise what you preach please. Fram (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I'll respond briefly. Being civil is the issue, not that you posted. And has been pointed out, ARS centers on AfD and notability guidelines help determin whether an article is allowed or not. Ergo changing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) certainly concerns ARS asthat guideline impacts AfD. I think we agree that this posting should have been presented neutrally - there is discussion on foo and your participation would be appreciated. It wasn't but the, IMHO, over-reaction was more problematic than the original post. -- Banjeboi 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    - But the guideline /essay / proposed guideline is being changed constantly and has been discussed for months now. Posting this here, just when he had started a straw poll on his preferred version, is spamming, even if it had been worded neutrally, which it obviously wasn't. So I agree that posts here should be worded neutrally, but I don't agree that if it was worded neutrally , it would have been acceptable. Many editors, admins, ... would be involved if a new or accepted WP:FICT would happen: from newpage patrollers to admins closing deletion discussions. Posting this only on the project page of editors specifically interested in keeping articles, where many members are acknowledged inclusionists and have previously sided with DreamFocus in thisand similar debates, is canvassing but avoiding the more obvious method of using user talk pages. Why would you use those when you can reach them all, and mainly only those, by a project talk post? How a short, one line message pointing out the problem is an "overreaction" or "uncivil" is beyond me. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      - You accused them, wrongl, of spamming when they were canvassing instead - So I started a strawpoll to have it added back in. You chose to be confrontational when it wasn't needed or helpful. A Man In Black deleted relevant diff and the link to the thread. IMHO, he over-reacted and you were uncivil. -- Banjeboi 14:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Bringing a bunch of likeminded editors to come and take your side is inappropriate. People can decide for themselves what discussions they want to participate in, without needing direct links from here to find them. But superkeen thanks for criticizing me for calling out inappropriate conduct here, then calling me out for perceived inappropriate conduct here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

can't see how it matters, as there will be no decisions there in any case, as there are people from all sides who refuse to cooperate in a compromise (such as combination articles), and those people will be there without the need to advertise. And anyone who thinks a non-compromise solution will reach approval there needs to read the archives, DGG (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much my take on it. I won't state ARS is immune to canvassing any more than ANI is - it will get more attention but frankly is unlikely to change the outcome of any discussion. In most cases it would seem to backfire. I stand by my statement above that the reaction to the posting has caused far more disruption than if we had just commented - this seems like a canvassing post - and generally ignored it. Perhaps next time you feel someone is posting innapropriately you would swerve towards the civil side more and likely effect the change you wish to see. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Have spamming and canvassing been an issue in the past? This appears borderline and falling on the side of a violation of our rules. If this is an ongoing problem, I'd like to see some diffs of the previous breaches and then the issue can be taken to WP:AN/I. AniMate^talk 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
People mention things here all the time. Stop trying to make an issue, where there is none. Canvassing is posting all over the place, not just in one area, where you think people should be informed of what is going on. You have people in the Rescue Squadron who would probably take opposite sides on this issue anyway, depending on their personal views on what wikipedia should be. Should we allow character pages and whatnot, or just delete them outright 99% of the time, as is currently done, since they lack any third party coverage? Those who like having these pages around, as it has been since the beginning of wikipedia, would support any measure to keep them, while others who don't want them, for whatever reason, would reject it. And no matter what happens, 99% of wikipedia users would never even know the debate was going on, there no general announcement or voting to settle things once and for all.

If you want to find some evidence of canvassing, perhaps you should look around in wikipedia Portals, where they are always gathering up like minded people, deciding to go to certain articles, harassing anyone who disagrees with them, and pushing through their objectives. Or find forums outside of wikipedia, where people gather and discuss what to do. Remember, the majority of changes, be it in guidelines, AFD, or even article editing, are done by a very small number of people, without most people noticing at all. So if you have even a dozen friends get together, you can totally shake things up.

The only way to keep things fair, would be a community wide vote, like they are doing with that copyright terms thing now. Notice the banner at the top that reads "Please participate in a vote to determine the future copyright terms of Wikimedia projects (vote ends May 3, 2009). Vote now!" If we just had a vote on what guidelines to accept or eliminate, then there wouldn't be a problem. Until that happens though, expect things to stay the same. Dream Focus 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) to Animate, IMHO, a few users have been overly zealous posting regarding policies and guidelines that certainly do impact the work we do. We also have a fair number of neby editors who drop by with "Save this" posts on this page. My general take on the nebies and those who apply the rescue tag to articles unlikely to be rescued is that we try to help them understand why "their" article is being deleted. If we do this well we might win them over to constructively editing. The other issue that came up again and prompted the above RfC was what I see as over-reacting to these posts. It was completely annoying to try to archive items and see if whatever discussion was done only to find (likely AMIB) had deleted the link so I had no idea and had to play detective to figure out what some of those discussions were. I saw that as quite disruptive and unneeded. In addition, many of the same folks who are critical of this project have repeatedly accused the entire project of canvassing accross many XfD discussions with, as far as I can tell, universal dismissal of it being in any way a project issue rather than a user-level issue. This is also why, as i do a fair ammount of vandal-fighting, I prefer that userpages document these issues so the concerns are directly discussed with them and not generalized to 200+ editors who are not causing problem. If there is compelling evidence please take it to ANI. -- Banjeboi 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Newbies? Like User:TomCat4680, editing since 2006? User:Dream Focus, also here since 2006? [[User:Ikip] since 2005? These are the editors of the posts that were labelled as canvassing on this talk page. How many times more are you going to post blatantly incorrect posts regarding these problems? Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- To Dream Focus, that notability page is awfully partisan but many there are working to resolve issues. If I would be able to rollback time your, IMHO, pointy thread there and post here wouldn't happen no matter how frustrated you may feel. Mediation may be needed to pull out those constructively working toward solutions and vigilant talkpage efforts to stem more diviseness. We all need good and clear policies that are fair but the path towards that is bumpy in this case. -- Banjeboi 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD length

My proposal having been carried, the AfD length is now seven days - hopefully this wil leave time for you guys to get more involved with the articles that are tagged. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

that deserves a barnstar. Great job! Ikip (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of the {{rescue}} tag

I'm trying to see both sides of the massive argument that's been going on for the last week or so. While I think that many of the arguements are tactless, I can see what they're getting at and I think it's a valid point to discuss cvilly.

As I see it, the gripe is that the {{rescue}} tag is being added for the sole purpose of bringing ARSers of any inclusion belief to the AFD, TFD, etc. That adding the {{rescue}} tag is only to bring AFDers (who are mistakenly believed to all inclusionists) to the discussion to keep the article for unfounded reasons.

When it comes to placing the tag, the project states:

_{What the Rescue template is for

Articles on notable subjects going through AfD that:
Need references
Are written poorly
Lack information readily available
Need cleaning up
What the Rescue template is not for

Articles that are not in the AfD process. You might post {{findsourcesnotice}} to the article's talk page as a way to suggest where editors may find sourced material for the article.
Articles that, no matter what improvements were made, would be considered inappropriate per WP:What Wikipedia is not. Use common sense and feel free to ask what other editors think on the project talk page.}

If people are adding the {{rescue}} tag for to any type of file that isn't savable by any means, then the person who added the tag needs to be addressed directly. It's not a felony to do this as it's a mistaken belief of what the tag is supposed to be used for. Even so, the damage done should be caught by an administrator in the deletion discussion (see next paragraph).

As for the alleged damage done (stacking "votes" in a deletion discussion), administrators should not simply be counting the votes in the discussion and making the decision accordingly. Each person commenting on the deletion discussion should be backing up their opinion with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If articles are being kept because 10 people only say, "Keep because it's notable," then the problem is with administrators.

In my opinion, the issue brought up lately is not with all of ARS and won't be solved just in a discussion with ARS members. The alleged problems are with ARSers adding a the {{rescue}} tag mistakenly, administrators counting votes in deletion discussions, and possibly policies and guidelines being too loose for interpretation.

If you agree with all or just one of those thoughts, then I don't see how having the discussion here will help those concerns. If the problem is with a person misusing the tag, take it up with them personally,. If the problem is admins misunderstanding the deletion discussion process, take it up with them personally. If the problem is a policy or guideline not being too loose for interpretation, please bring up your concern on the respective guideline or policy. OlYeller^Talktome 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You've fallen into the belief-hole. The {{rescue}} tag is being used to canvass inclusionists to keep unencyclopedic articles, no matter how strenuously you deny it. If I had time, I'd commission a study of how AFDs change after the tag hits the article. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's is a shame you only have time to spread the accusation then presnt any compelling evidence. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  - That this squadron has an overrepresentation of self-declared inclusionists is due to the targeted recruiting of members from that category. And that it is used for canvassing has been shown above for the template, and can also be seen in things like Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescue Dan Miller (sportscaster) please, which instead of focussing on article improvement (help, it needs sources! or soemthing similar), solely focuses on the votecount. While obviously not all people here are inclined to blindly vote keep on anything that is tagged for rescue, the reality is that the board is used or perceived by many editors as an easy venue for gathering keeps. Fram (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Again, accusations are unhelpful and only serve to cause drama here. If you have an actual case to present maybe any admin board would be more appropriate. The posts here really need to remain free of drama so we can get back to the rescue work. If you don't want to help that is certainly within your control. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      - Benujiboi, it is you who are fuelling the drama. Above and here, you first deny anything going wrong, and when then presented with evidence, change your position to claim that it isn't helpful and that it creates drama. If you had not reacted incorrectly in the first place or hadn't asked for evidence here, no further replies would have follwoed and all this presumed drama could have been avoided. Similarly, above, if you hadn't first denied that any canvassing had happened, and if you had indeed tried to correct people who mistakenly used the rescue tag, then no complaints from other editors had followed. If you don't act on the problems, don't complain when other people point out that the project you are active in has problems. Don't shoot the messenger, but act on the message. Fram (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        I see lots of accusations and relatively few isolated incidents that concern individual editors. As has been stated quite a few times accross venues these should be taken up with them personally. I was accusewd of canvassing - not directly mind you so it was a surprise to me - for simply posting a link to a TfD discussion. In fairness that editor may honestly feel posting any XfD link may be canvassing but I think that would have been quickly dismissed by any other admin. That this was only done as an edit-war accompanied by rather baseless edit summaries leads a reasonable conclusion of intimidation rather than any concensus or reasonable dialog we expect from more seasoned editors and, of course, admins. This is similar to all te other accusations made here, they were poorly effected if the intent was to address someone directly, they instead were done in a public and shaming manner which adds divisiness where none is needed. I can also guarantee you that if compelling evidence is shown that ARS is violating policies or any of our templates and pages are problematic, we fix them, just like every instance in the past. No bullying needed, just thoughtful dialogue on what the problem in seen to be and possible solutions. We work together and share the same pages, we can disagree without being disagreeable. If you feel I've caused drama myself I apologize, I'm trying to get a community consensus and move on. That I was personally accused of something was just an unfortunate chapter and I'll get over it. -- Banjeboi 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        If people publicly respond to canvassing attempts as if they are perfectly normal, then those same people shouldn't be surprised if such attempts are pointed out publicly as well. This does not involve "bullying", "intimidation", or "public shaming". If someone does something on page X, that can be discussed on (talk) page X: doing so is making the opinion public and giving everyone a chance to give their interpretation, instead of chastizing an editor out of public view. It is obvious that this board is repeatedly used to canvass editors, either for not-ARS related discussions or to specifically vote keep in AfD's. To discuss this each time separately with those editors is unproductive, certainly when other editors are replying here to their posts as if they are normal and welcome. DIscussing those posts here may at least get us closer to a consensus. So I'll continue to point out each canvassing or otherwise inappropriate comment made on this page here. Fram (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        Perhaps you're missing the point here. If someone posts an "obvious canvassing" thread it doesn't mean ARS is the problem or that we're enabling it. If you're actually trying to help those doing the alleged canvassing you might find that a kinder approach - like with all our work on the encyclopedia - works much more effectively. A simple - "hi, you might not realize it but asking people to vote one way or another is considered WP:Canvassing and is not allowed; letting people know about a discussion and telling them how to vote there are two seperate things" - would work just fine. It doesn't have to happen here but I suppose it could. Personally I think it's much smarter to put it on their talkpage so if other editors share the concern they too can see an issue with that editor. When canvassing-like posts are presented here they do get attention but, IMHO, the same attention if they had been presented neutrally or not. People will always make mistakes but we try to correct these and do so constructively and civilly. That's a core policy and even if we disagree we need to still work with one another. -- Banjeboi 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        If I had seen someone from the ARS trying to correct these mistakes, I would give more value to your opinion. But the impression you gave was that our concerns were unfounded, that no canvassing had happened, and that the posts were good things. I hope that you will act in the future much like you are discussing it now, and not like you have acted in the past. As for civility: I am not the one shouting "drama", "bullying", ... in this discussion. Noting problems is not uncivil, and doing so at the same venue as where they happened is not uncivil either. And you were the oone that vehemently opposed removing offending posts, since they should get archived instead, i.e. kept in public view for as long as was needed. If you want to keep the canvassing here, then you shouldn't object to a discussion of it here either. Fram (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. You know if I was wrong I apologize. Perhaps I'm just immune to the canvassing "problem". It's not my job to fix it and no we don't have to remove it. I have the funny feeling most of here are equally immune to "save this" pleas. We do it all the time and if we can we will, if we can't we won't, pretty clear cut. Being accused of canvassing in a completely uncivil and edit-warring fashion by an admin was alarning to me. It simply shouldn't have happenned but some good has come of it. Do I agree with them that I was canvassing, hardly and I doubt anyone does. Has there been other instances, probably. Do they warrant wholesale accusations and mischaracterizing an entire Wikiproject - never. Further incidents should be handled civilly and directly to the user, that's in everyone's best interest. I'm not sure there is anything on a projectwide basis that needs to be delved into further. We have a lot of work to do so I'd like to get the focus back on that. -- Banjeboi 10:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So you won't object to such inappropriate posts being removed and dealt with privately, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to fuel this discussion any further but I think there's a possibility that you misunderstood my intentions Benjiboi. I don't think that canvassing is going on. It's possible that it's being attempted but I see no evidence that it's happening. I accused no one and spread no accusations. I think it's possible that you've gotten so defensive that you've misinterpreted my intentions but that just tells me that you're emotionally dedicated to this project. I'm sorry if you feel that way and if I somehow mislead you, I'm also sorry. Your last post has reiterated exactly what I said above. That, "incidents should be handled civilly and directly to the user" and not to the whole project. I guess if I had to sum up my intentions in a short sentence, I'd say that I was trying to accumulate those feelings into better formatted response as opposed to a single paragraph reply.OlYeller^Talktome 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, either they get discussed privately with the person involved and the offending posts are removed here immediately (which was quickly reverted and objected to in the past), or they get adressed here. To leave the posts here without any comments gives the impression to the next editor who comes along that it is perfectly allright to post "please come and vote keep on X" on this page. Fram (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. OlYeller21, I didn't mean your post here, I meant accusations of canvassing simply slung against the whole project by others. It's been done to death and "we" don't need the repeated stress of it. Very unhelpful. And as to the concept - we'll just delete those "canvassing posts"? If a editor is trying to save content deleting the post would seem to be antagonistic. No, they should not be deleted, that violates the assume good faith behavioral guideline that we are obligated to assume people are here to help and don't mean to bend or break rules. If you feel it needs to be addressed then very civilly reply to the effect that posts for any discussion need to be presented neutrally; inviting people to participate is fine - telling them what to think and how to vote is considered campaigning and needs to be avoided per WP:Canvassing. In addition to the reply on this page, please take it to the individual and civilly post a similar message. This keeps a centralized record for future editors looking to see a pattern of abuse or disruption - intentional or not. Our goal is not to shame but to build, fix, support and work together. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutrally worded spam can and should still be removed. If the posts about WP:FICT was worded neutrally, it should still have been removed as spam. However, some people here even don't see the non-neutral version as spam anyway, and a post to the canvassing user are then replied to by a third editor here to point out how uncivil and inappropriate it was. You shouldn't believe everything you read here, since there is a huge gap between words and deeds on this page. Fram (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  - First you can stop calling it spam, it wasn't by definition at all, so that's your POV, it was arguably canvassing but that doesn't give you license to remove or refactor another user's post. It's pretty clear that's causing more problems than helping and frankly it should be addressed on a user level and a civil note placed here per prior discussions with you on this issue. You other opinions are duly noted. -- Banjeboi 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)