Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

Broda Otto Barnes

Resolved: Referred to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (WP:FTN). -- Banjeboi 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the place to request help for an article that appears to have been given the trim-to-stub-and-AfD cheatment, barely rescued at AfD, restored, and now they're just starting it over again?

Summary: The discoveries of Dr. Barnes, MD, PhD, a now-deceased professor of medicine with a foundation web site,[1] have been continuously supported by a minority of licensed medical doctors for over 65 years. His JAMA and Lancet peer-reviewed work was eventually picked up by the alternative health community – yet it's not formally alternative. In the present weird situation, Wikipedia medical crusaders against alternative health have become idologically unable to distinguish between fringe and peer-reviewed medicine. Unencyclopedically using politics rather than science, if external alternative health advocates are for it, the anti-alternative editors seem to be against it – even though it's research done by a member of the group they support. During and after the AfD, agenda crusading devolved to obsessive denialism.

See the 10K restoration re-removed at the article [2], so far supported only by WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning at talk [3]. Milo 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not such a place. The Broda Otto Barnes article does not appear to be up for deletion, and so is outside the scope of this squadron. Sincerely, Skomorokh 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to request outside involvement from relevant WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Alternative medicine. Regards, Skomorokh 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about this. The problem is that including BOB in WikiProject Alternative medicine sort of 'proves' that the crusaders are justified. Milo 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Fringe theories noticeboard is also watched by people interested in problems of demarcation, weight, and appropriate sourcing. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. There has been an unsupportable fringe accusation. But a noticeboard doesn't provide ongoing editor support the way a Wikiproject might.

←Thanks for the helpful referrals. What the article really needs is centrists like DGG who, like most librarians, believes in the right to read what others want to censor or slant. Is there another Wikiproject that could be helpful in that way?

Also, thanks to Ikip for restoring this post after A Man in Black went rogue and deleted it here. Milo 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 01:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise for Hollie Steel

Resolved: Tag added. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a Rescue tag on an article that's now at DRV? Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission? Just curious. Radiopathy •talk• 02:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. By actually working on the article our members have rendered entire delete discussions moot. If an article exists we would apply the {{rescue}} tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve Wikipedia in this manner. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Easy Ben! I am a member of the ARS. My concern was that this would be seen as canvassing, especially since "What the Rescue tag is not for" does not say anything about articles that have already been through AfD. We need to talk about this some more. Radiopathy •talk• 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I find the constant accusations by a small but persistent group toxic and impeding the work here. I re-added the rescue tag and DRVs are structurally just different from AfD. They aren't AFD 2.0 but speak to if the AfD closed properly. ARS in the past has rescued articles at DRV by improving the article itself and addressing the issues raised. If we show the subject is notable and sourcing available then AfD's can be overturned based on new evidence - even if the close at the time was ok or borderline. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron?

  • Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron? In particular, should the {{rescue}} tag be applied to templates currently at templates for deletion? 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed for space. Discussion closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • Templates are simply a different form of content and ARS can certainly offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s - an area that is generally less busy and contentious than AfD - I see little harm in getting more eyes on TfD discussions. (Note: I've had to re-edit this statement due to the RFC being changed after posting.) Templates are well within the spirit of what ARS does, that our name doesn't state Article and Template Rescue Squad is rather silly. We work to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected and deleted. ARS members look to solve problems and serve our readers, templates often need rescuing as much as articles do. TfD, generally, concerns more experienced editors so I see little downside to ARS being involved in this manner for now. -- Banjeboi 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is soliciting comments directly to a deletion discussion from a project that exists to prevent the deletion of articles appropriate? This project was never "getting more eyes on [deletion] discussions." In fact, "The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes[...]. ARS ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing" not by selectively notifying a group which had a major recruitment drive based on having an "inclusionist" userbox on your userpage. Even if good faith is intended, the damage has been done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)Benjoboi, "which is technically able to be used on TfDs": What is that supposed to mean? Whether it is "technically able" or not isutterly irrelevant, I can add template:BLPunsourced to an article about a plant species, but that has no further importance. Please try to keep the question focused and don't add unrelated stuff.
  • Furthermore: do you mean all templates or only content templates? It makes no difference to my opinion, but it may influence other people one way or the other.
  • I would prefer also if everything beyond AfD's was included somehow in this RfC, so that we don't have to discuss categories, mergers, redirects, ... all separately. In general: is the ARS only intended for articles which are up for deletion through AfD, or does it have a wider scope, and if so, howwide should it be?
  • My personal opinion on that question is that the ARS should only be for articles on AfD, as it is basically intended to rescue articles (hence the name) through a combined effort at sourcing and major cleaning, not through a combined effort at voting keep, which would be the intended effect on most other deletion discussions (and which is evidenced by the canvassing for mergers and templates which has happened already). A template (or a category or a redirect) is not content, but a way of presenting content, which is completely different and should not be grouped under this rescue project. Fram (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


  • Note the distinction between "improv[ing] articles flagged for rescue by adding sources and otherwise cleaning them up" and "offer[ing] help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s". One is a call for article improvement. The other is a call to comment at a deletion discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Your opinion on this project, the {{rescue}} tag, and the work of the project members here is painfully apparent. I'm unclear why you choose to insert yourself continuously in a project you seem so at odds with. In any case this isn't part 2, 3 or 4 in an effort to characterize all editors here as inclusionists. It's to stop the edit-warring regarding templates being within the scope of ARS. How the project page is reworked to reflect that articles and other content worth rescuing would have to be worked out just as we've worked out every other concern in the past. This RfC concerns scope not re-accussing an entire project of canvassing, inclusionism, etc concerns which have been addressed and dismissed every time. -- Banjeboi 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This RfC concerns scope not your opinion of Mr. In Black's opinions. pablohablo. 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Because I like the idea of improving on AFD to prevent them from being deleted. The idea of a "come and comment on deletion discussions to save things from deletion" is what I'm not so hot on. When you outright say that, I have a major problem. Characterizing that as a problem limited to me is a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, this RfC concerns scope not accusations of canvassing. -- Banjeboi 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
          • How do you propose this project clean up non-article content in response to qualms raised in deletion discussions? Almost all tools at XfD are at risk of deletion because they are ill-conceived or abandoned, not incomplete. (Also, bear in mind my comments are addressing your call for members of this project to "offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s". That's advocating the same kind of canvassing I've been criticizing all along, and I'm only repeating myself because the canvassing hasn't stopped.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
            • < boggles > I think your characterizing my posting a link to a TfD discussion as canvassing is wholly innapropriate and a leaping pile of bad faith. I'll echo OlYeller21's concern that I can't believe I have to spell that out to an admin. We don't tell people how to vote we ask them to participate in the discussion - you should know better. ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected, renamed and deleted. TfD just concerns content in a different format. Likely the project page would have a section added pointing to a subpage regarding TfDs with handy links; i think the main premise to get accross is that templates morph greatly over time and often become obsolete, renamed, repurposed, etc while articles once established generally just grow. The {{rescue}} template would likely be tweaked to display template-appropriate content and our ARSBot tweaked to display the correct links for our current list subpage. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
              • "How dare you, sir!" isn't an argument. Yes, everyone knows all you want is to help the encyclopedia. Understand that you don't necessarily have a monopoly on it, and that I can ascribe to you all the good faith in the world and still have a problem with how you try to help the encyclopedia.
                Anyway. Noise aside. ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping. I don't want to see that branding turned into "Please keep this template I think we should keep." Instead, I think the template and associated tools are only for content that needs revamping/rewriting/cleanup in order to be saved. I'm not strictly opposed to {{rescue}} on templates per se, but it needs to be clear, {{rescue}} needs to be "Please clean this up in order to clearly show its value" not "Please keep this, I think it helps the encyclopedia." If you want to say "Please keep" we have XfD discussions for that. If you want to have more people come and back you up and say "Please keep", please don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I am unhappy with a proposal that amount to the abuse of the audience of 200+ members. I'm not suggesting malfeasance on the part of the group, but that it's inappropriate to solicit that group to skew a debate with the force of their presence, by soliciting their input directly to debate.
                You suggested that this project should come and comment on selected TFD discussions. Solicitation from a group with an avowed stance (in this case, the prevention of deletion of content) is harmful. What benefit do we gain by making this project noticeboard for template deletion discussions when we have that noticeboard already? And before attacking the assertion that the project has an avowed stance, note that there are even a link to a WSJ article describing this project as stridently opposed to deletion; ARS is notably inclusionist! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Your, IMHO, shrillish "concern" has been soundly rejected every time this project has been targeted with these generalized attacks and yes, this RfC is all about your edit-warring. As an admin you should be alarmed by your own behaviour. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • You attacked me instead of answering my question. Again. We have a noticeboard for templates for deletion. How do we benefit by having another? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • To me the answer to that seems apparent, we have a noticeboard for AfDs as well yet hundreds of editors have found ARS to be helpful in recognizing content that shouldn't be deleted or otherwise can be used for our readers' benefit. Likewise ARS can be helpful on TfD discussions, identifying issues, proposing solutions and offering more eyes on a deletion discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • Why can't ARS members simply watch TFD, like all editors? Why is their input so valuable it needs to be solicited directly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Outdent. Well I guess I can answer that with my habits as an example. I don't watch AfD at all, if an AfD is brought to my attemtion here or one of the wikiproject talkpages I watch ... then I have a look. Same with all other XfDs, I simply don't pay any attention to them at all. My hopes are that editors who are experienced in those areas will be able to raise the alert if they feel something is being deleted in error. Obviously it would be ideal if nothing was ever created or deleted in error but that's unlikely to happen so we work with the systems we have - not the ones we hope for. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • That's the problem, though. You're wanting to make this the "Come save this from deletion" noticeboard, and that's exactly what I've been trying to stop it from becoming and exactly what people have been worrying that it would become. This is an article improvement noticeboard, not a save this from deletion noticeboard. The important part of "improving articles so they aren't deleted" is "improving articles." When yandman talks about coopting this board, or I talk about canvassing, this is what I mean. It's a good faith effort, but it's harmful to consensus building. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
        • You may have us mistaken with all other clean-up projects. We only work on items marked for deletion. We specialize in making quick assessments and improvements including recommending if something likely should be merged, renamed, reworked, deleted, etc. And your continued assertions/accusations mischaracterizing us all as inclusionists etc. are only serving to prevent the project from moving forward to building tools to help improve those very items we're here to do. Sorry, I see your profound, unsubstantiated and repeated criticism as unproductive and toxic. You quote "improving articles so they aren't deleted", where is that from? We "ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing". You may want to also note we don't punish people for tagging items that really should be deleted, we may try to work with them so the do better editing in the future but many items that are simply not rescuable are tagged and, yes, get deleted. We help as we can. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
          • This project only works on items marked for deletion. It does not work on deletion discussions, and you've called for people to come and get involved in template deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
            • OK, you really are pushing the absurd here. Do you honestly think or have any evidence that ARS restricts its members from taking part in the AfD discussion, in any way? For that matter we don't tell people how to vote or even vote. We do instruct to read the AfD to know what the issues stated are, accurate or not. So no, you're mistaken on this one as well, we certainly do take part in the AfD as well as look to improving the article if appropriate and possible. There's no logical reason this wouldn't carry over to templates as well - the skills are just less used by most Wikipedians. -- Banjeboi 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
              • It's not absurd, it's the distinction that allows this project to exist. If this project exists to clean up content up for deletion, that's good and should be encouraged. The project being a board for soliciting people to come to deletion discussions, that's a problem. That's the problem. And the fact that you haven't yet suggested what the project would do for templates, let alone other non-article content, and talked about "getting more input at TFD discussions", seems to say that you're wanting to solicit people to come to deletion discussions. Selectively soliciting people to deletion discussions is the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Well you are indeed mistaken as the items primarily addressed by this project are ones at deletion so it's disingenuous to claim surprise or object that memebers take part in deletion discussion. It's our primary work, we try to understand the issues that brought content to XfD and offer our perspective and often talents to fixing problems or suggesting what is best for Wikipedia. And despite your assertions I have already explained how we would help at TfD a few times in this RfC. I'm sorry you're assuming something else is at play. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Templates, categories, images, sound files and anyting that is not an article are outside the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron. The point of the squadron is to collaboratively source and improve articles listed on Afd. There is no reason, however, why there shouldn't be a "Template Improvement Team" to go with ARS. pablohablo. 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It's all content though, we don't compartmentalize our content that only images go in one pile and only templates are here. It's all information, visual, auditory etc and it works together to communication the vast sum of human knowledge to each other, freely. Templates are simply a different way to organize content. And a "Template Improvement Team" would likely be a sub-team of ARS using ... the {{rescue}} tag with links helpful to template issues. -- Banjeboi 14:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it's not content, it's presentation. An article has content, a template (anda category and so on) has no content but is a method of presenting it (there's a reason that they are called "navigation" templates). When you delete e.g. the NY representatives template, no content is lost, only a method of navigating. Fram (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Fram has a good point. We're supposed to be saving things (articles, templates, pics, etc) from deletion when there's a reason not to (i.e. more references are needed and out there). If we're adding the {{rescue}} template when the only thing that can be done is vote in the TfD, then there's a problem. But if the template is broken (for example) and it can be fixed, then adding the {{rescue}} tag makes sense. OlYellerTalktome 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually templates are content. A list of kinds of Italian bread is standardized in {{Italian bread}} and posted to relevant articles. At Tfd the core issues tend to be, is this needed, should it be merged, renamed etc. These are quite similar to AfD discussions. Sourcing is rarely an issue but the rest of those issues seem relevant. I was involved in a TfD regarding a group of "fringe" articles - was the template applying undue weight to those theories - so the core issues and the spirit are nearly idecticle. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I tend to be a deletionist but I also believe in saving SAVABLE articles from deletion even when they're in AfD or CSD. Being a deletionist and wanting to save articles aren't mutually exclusive. The line on what's "savable" is drawn by each member. Saying that everyone in a group is the same is about as close to bigoted as you can get and I'm personally sick of being personally attacked by an administrator because of the alleged actions of others. That being said, I don't see ARS as being just for articles. I think the {{rescue}} tag can be used for anything on wikipedia that may be in danger of being deleted when a measurable amount of work can be done to keep it from being deleted. OlYellerTalktome 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    That a group can be composed of a majority does not deny that a minority exists. My problem is with "Come comment on this discussion" and less "OMG INCLUSIONIST CABAL" because we already have a general-purpose "come comment on this discussion" noticeboard for deletion discussions. This is a "come fix these articles" noticeboard, and is for articles that need to be fixed; turning it into "come comment on this discussion" will rapidly turn it into "Partisan Battleground Project". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    This is the first time I've read a response from you on this page that I wasn't offended. If it makes any difference, if people are doing that, I ignore it to the point where I can't remember that even happening. As to not offend others and assume good faith of the "minority", please address specific people when they do something like that. Why am I having to tell this to an admin? OlYellerTalktome 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    I am operating from the assumption that advertising a discussion to an audience which chiefly sympathizes with one side of that discussion is bad. It's not bad because the audience's contribution is bad; it's bad because partisan canvassing skews discussion inordinately. I don't know how I could more directly call out Banjeboi or Ikip (in reference to the last two canvassing messes) without overly personalizing things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm suggesting that you talk about it with them on there talk page as when you do it here and don't use specific names, you're calling out the entire ARS community for the actions of 2 people. OlYellerTalktome 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    That doesn't get any wider input (as amusing as the juxtaposition is, the only place for a representative mix of people with an opinion on the operation of this project is its own talk page) and it doesn't solve the problem of the canvassing directly. If it's up for a week while wider input is solicited to a talk page, then the damage is done even if the canvassing is removed later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Until this RfC was stated, by me, I had no clue you were accusing me of canvassing. You never stated it to me, that I know of, and your edit summaries were, IMHO, shrill. I'll agree again with OlYeller21 that canvassing issues need to be addressed on a user level, and admins should be well aware of that. You've used the canvassing board before so maybe that would be a better alternative to keep this wikiproject focussed on our work rather than your perception of some editors actions. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, this RfC concerns scope not accusations of canvassing. -- Banjeboi 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    I see your proposal as "Should this project canvass its members to participate in TFD discussions?" Also, you just repeated the same argument twice in one discussion, which is what that WP:ATA spinoff is talking about, whereas I've been repeating the same argument over many different related discussions. But we've both been articulating new parts of our own positions and gaining at least some light in the discussion, so it's not as though either of us is doing anything useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Oy vey, sadly I see you've been accusing me of canvassing for several hours now. I'll echo OlYeller21's concern that I can't believe we have to spell this out to an admin. We don't tell people how to vote we ask them to participate in the discussion - you should know better, there is a big difference. Maybe re-read WP:Canvassing. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Why here? (And please, the "I can't believe this, you should know better" is very tiresome.)- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Your blanket statement disparaging a group of 200+ members is wrong. There, is that more clear? You're an admin but your poor behaviour belies that. Clear enough? Admins are expected to act a bit more civil, follow policies at least a little better. I hope this explains why your edit-warring accross this project and related discussion is unwelcome, uncivil and unbecoming and admin. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    Response above, this is sprawling out of control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • My patience with your concerns is rather run out at this point. You seem to be ready to argue and threaten, edit-war and accuse then register another concern when your actions have generated "sprawl". I find that disingenuous at best. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      Um. Okay. I moved my comment above because I thought this back-and-forth was starting to dominate the page. But go go gadget accusations! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Commment I'm with OlYeller21, even though I'm probably a mergeist, if you have to nail me down. ARS exists to rescue stuff, primarily articles, and people who want to help by improving things facing deletion are welcome here. If someone wants to post notices in the hopes of canvassing for keep !votes, that's their problem, and if people read this page looking for places to cast keep !votes, that's their problem. I've had the experience of posting an article for rescue and Benjiboi has shown up and strenuously argued that it be deleted. I know I've looked at articles tagged for rescue, and either shaken my head and walked away (not wanting to pile on in an obviously appropriate deletion trend) or argued for deletion or merge. So I don't care if people put up TfD, IfD, or the like for rescue--If I know or strongly suspect that the target is notable, I'll use the resources (ProQuest, EBSCOhost) and knowledge (CITET, etc.) at my disposal to fix it. I personally don't see how I can help with those other non-article deletion spaces, but I also don't see the traffic in such non-AfD XfD's to be high enough to be a distraction to the rest of the ARS. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • By and large, templates are only deleted if they are a) redundant, b) unused and totally neglected or c) obviously not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The one general exception to this is navboxes, and frankly navbox TfDs do not need more input from the more fringe elements of this WikiProject, for the reasons intimated by aMiB. I don't see any positive impact to involving ARS in template discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Characterizing any editors as fringe isn't civil. If you have an issue with a particular editor(s) take it to them directly please. And your assertion that having more eyes on a TfD not likely to have any positive impact, seems counter to the spirit of consensus. We want more participation so we are more likely to make the right decision. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"We want more participation so we are more likely to make the right decision"... I don't believe I am the only one who is deeply disturbed by statements such as this. The reason ARS has survived various formal (MFD) and informal (ANI) deletion discussions is that it has always been claimed that it was about editing articles where lack of content/structure/sources threatened deletion, not block-participating in XfDs. And I think that the vast majority of editors in this project follow that philosophy. You clearly have another opinion, and I'm sorry, but an important project such as this one cannot be hijacked by a handful of editors who want it to take another direction. yandman 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you have implied meaning to a statement that isn't there. The right decision isn't to keep or delete but what is best for Wikipedia. Consensus discussion is to involve better judgement by a group to make the best decision possible - any idea why we wouldn't want more participation in discussions that affect us all? As an aside this RfC is to help us make the right or best decision as well. Please AGF that the exact same thing I've been doing here all along is working to improve Wikipedia. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is indeed the best thing. Which is why we have a page called WP:AFD on which all the deletion discussion are listed. "better judgement by a group" is exactly what we don't want. We don't want a group to decide they are making the best judgement by block-voting in XfDs. We don't want a group that has been allowed to use an official-looking articlespace template suddenly decide that they don't want to play by the rules that were set down. When did this project abandon the whole "stick to improving the articles, let others notice our work and participate in the discussion" ethos? Since this project was hijacked (and I choose my words carefully, the attempts to merge this page with WP:Inclusionism being the most blatant example), that philosophy has pretty much evaporated. yandman 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And consensus is what ARS has always advocated. Accusations of block voting are simply false and no credible evidence has been shown to sustain that blanket bad-faith accusations. You can stop now. And that attempts to merge this page with WP:Inclusionism was stopped by me at ANI. Every other concern about inclusionism blah blah blah has also been addressed. ARS has been continuously supported by the community, despite generalized and unsubstantiated accusations. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As a very general comment, the more light we get on the various non-AfD XfDs the better, and what we need to do is figure out how to encourage it, not worry about whether it falls into any particular remit. TfD in the past has been really problematic, because most of it is very uninteresting, but on occasion something is proposed where the deletion actually means changing or editing a Wikipedia project of procedure. Any such discussions of importance should be taken elsewhere, like the VP, but they do show up at TfD -- and MfD. There are lots of ways to delete material that avoid the publicity of AfD; this Project has a wider role than just being an AfD talk page, or thinking its title means a prohibition against doing whatever is relevant and permissible and acceptable to the community. DGG (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should be able to be called to attempt to rescue anything under an XfD process (i.e. not PROD, CSD or other non-final discussions). If this means we must change the name of the project to just Rescue Squadron, just to avoid spurious arguments, so be it. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What are the rescue template actually doing on a template? Essentially all TfD debates focus on usefulness and/or appropriateness of a template. While there are cases where a rewording of the template can address the concerns that is raised on the deletion debate, in most cases those debates deals with the idea behind the template. As such there is nothing to rescue, either the template is appropriate, or it is not, and the only way to figure which is to reach a consensus. On such cases the template serves no purpose. Taemyr (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected, renamed and deleted, etc. TfD just concerns content in a different format. Likely the project page would have a section added pointing to a subpage regarding TfDs with handy links; I think the main premise to get accross is that templates morph greatly over time and often become obsolete, renamed, repurposed, etc while articles once established generally just grow. The {{rescue}} template would likely be tweaked to display template-appropriate content and our ARSBot tweaked to display the correct links for our current list subpage. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The point is that the rescue template exists in order to recruit people into improving the content under discussion. For templates at TfD it's difficult to see how that purpose can be served. Taemyr (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • That is only an aspect of what we do. We also offer our insights on other options as well as looking at issues from our various perspectives. And templates are content there to help our readers - we can surely offer an opinion if something is fixable, useless, etc. And for basic templates we might even be able to address the issues directly by editing them. -- Banjeboi 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes or No - I'll say "yes" if this moves to an "all or nothing" sort of outcome. As has been said above, anything under the XfD process should be included. This should not only apply to AfD and TfD, but also to CfD (Category for Deletion) and even IfD (images). Otherwise, count mine as a "no". Everything under XfD = "yes". Articles and templates ONLY = "no". - ALLST☆R echo 09:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That would likely be a yes as the logical conclusion would be that other XfD would also be allowed. Templates just happenned to be at the heart of the edit-warring so I decided wider community input would help show a consensus of how to proceed. Personally, dealing with creating another ANI thread was not helping lift my spirits to contribute and even if one editor is blocked another could quickly pop up to further disrupt things. Better to RfC and see where the community stands. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • as a card-carrying occlusionist (i.e., someone who prefers to see issues like this get closed) I have to say: WTF??? if someone thinks a template is salvageable and useful, and wants to rescue it - let 'em rescue it. there's just no reason to be hasty about deleting a template (short of it constituting a violation of WP core principles, or being created for some kind of vandalism). Wikipedia has plenty of space, and a template can sit in the background, unused, while people play with it. if you're worried about it being used, wrap the whole thing in 'noinclude' tags so it can't transclude anything. what a silly debate... --Ludwigs2 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am one who has called the ARS to help me attempt to rescue two templates. It looks like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6‎#Template:NYRepresentatives is going to be unsuccessful as was the first attempt. Nonetheless, I think ARS should be invovled in rescue attempts of any form of content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the ARS should be disbanded entirely, as an equivalent organization designed to rally deletionists to an article in support of its removal would be very quickly MFDed. However, in the knowledge that that won't happen, I believe templates should be out of scope of the ARS. What does the A stand for? Stifle (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Stifle, what are YOU here for? If I can speak for the ARS as a whole, we're here to build an encyclopedia.' That means adding encyclopedic content and preventing the removal of encyclopedic content, most often through fixing bad/marginal articles on appropriately encyclopedic topics. ARS is not inclusionist, although ARS attracts inclusionists, and good faith editors can differ over the definition of "appropriately encyclopedic topics" without undermining the encyclopedia-building process. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You're engaging in codology if you expect me to believe that ARS is not an inclusionist project designed to canvass editors to keep articles that aren't always approaching notability. You're also the only project which has managed to get license to leave your project tag on an article page, rather than a talk page like all the others. One of the main methods of keeping an encyclopedia high-quality is the removal of inappropriate content, and the ARS hampers that. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The community disagrees with your blanket assertions and bad faith accusations that you feel it's OK to spread your antagonistic views shows a lack of civility toward fellow editors and is generally unhelpful and unwelcome. If you've nothing constructive to offer here it's likely this project is not a good match for your particular POV. There are plenty of projects out there so let me hereby encourage you to explore the wikiverse in hopes you find a more collegial envirnment for your take on things. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
          • If by "the community", you mean "Some other people and I", then yes. There is, however, room for all of us in Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I support Ben's proposal to formerly include templates. Ikip (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes The ARS may properly concern itself with any content which is threatened with removal. If this gets complicated we might introduce subdivisions like International Rescue and its specialist craft such as Thunderbird 4... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - If the content of article, template, file, picture, etc. is savable (requires some sort of maintenance like adding refs or fixing code) then yes, it should be tagged with the {{rescue}} tag. If people are that worried about symantics, change ARS to RS or WRS (Wikipedia Rescue Squadron). I don't think that artciles should have the {{rescue}} tag added if the articles, templates, etc. that are currently as complete as they can be. In other words, if an article has all the refs added that can be found and its notability is in question or if the template is working perfectly and can't be changed so that it's not redundant, the tag should not be added. OlYellerTalktome 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    If this is the proposal, I'm amenable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    Just as we don't punish people tagging articles that really can't be rescued we simply would educate folks regarding the proper use regarding any other XfD. The concerns, IMHO, are a bit blunted as non-AfD discussions tend to attract more experienced editors so I don't see quite the same misapplying concern. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    Ya, I'm not saying that people who tag incorrectly need to be warned or reprimanded in any way, just educated. OlYellerTalktome 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    IF only this would be applied in practice, there would perhaps be less opposition and criticism. However, when a template like the NYrepresentatives is tagged and people here are canvassed to come and keep it at the TfD, this is considered perfectly acceptable by members of the ARS, even though no content changes have been proposed or suggested, and the tag and message were clearly not in line with what is the proposed scope of the ARS. So I don't believe in this proposal at all, and continue to oppose any change of scope for the ARS. Fram (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    As someone who has participated in that discussion and despite your claim, has made content suggestions, you have this one wrong. The original poster asked for help which is far from canvassing which entails not only telling people how to vote but where to do it. This was not that. Another canvassing accusation down the drain <gloop> <gloop> <gloop>. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    "It seems to me that {{NYRepresentatives}} should be kept if the rest of Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes, but it is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives. I know you don't put rescue tags on templates, but this should be kept." How is this not "not only telling people how to vote but where to do it"? How to vote = it should be kept, where = TfD discussion. Fram (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    As I stated the original poster asked for help, they stated their opinion but never said "everyone needs to vote to keep this". You inventing conversatios which didn't happen. Most of us are adults here and know how to register our opinion on a XfD, it's rather rude to presume we would be swayed by a canvassing request or even follow it. I wouldn't say we are immune to the concept but certainly haven't seen this effectively employed either. If we can help, we do, if not we don't. -- Banjeboi 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    You claimed that no canvassing had happened, which is patently untrue. Now you claim that no one would be swayed by it, which may be true, but is a completely different discussion. I did not invent any conversation, I quoted it. Fram (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. The issue remains the same, we don't punish an editor for misusing this or any other teplate, we work to ensur ethey dont do it again. Likewise we don't accuse an entire Wikiproject for something that one editor may or may not have done. The rest is just bickering and it seems only to show emnity against the many editors here. It's unhelpful and you can consider your concern duly noted. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

Seems there is consensus to allow templates and issues how to proceed forward have also been laid out. Can we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi
  • Could you explain what you mean by "issues [on] how to proceed forward"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    That tweaks to; the project's mainpage and the template page should take place; template-specific parameters created so when {{rescue}} is added it displays not only the correct link (that works already) but also template-specific content rather than article-specific content. Also this is a good excuse to create the subpage on how to rescue content and templates would have its own section. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really see that consensus. Users opposed include me, Pablo, Chris Cuningham, and Stifle. Users supporting include Benjiboi, OlYeller, JClemens, Mark Hurd, TonyTheTiger, Ikip, and Colonel Warden. Other comments came from DGG, Taemyr, AllStar, Ludwigs2, and AMiB. That's not really a consensus, and certianly not one to be decided by an involved editor. Perhaps it would be better if some examples of TfD's were given where people would want to add the rescue tag (the one example we had was not rescued), so that we can see if there would be a need for this, if this would give us any potential benefit, or if on the other hand it would only bring more rescuers to the discussion without actually doing anything about the templates (the "content", if one can call it that). Fram (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    It may be more constructive to see if an uninvolved editor could see if my read on consensus is accurate or not and if not suggest a way forward. Given the acrimony I'm hesitant to start quibbling over examples and hypotheticals. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it be constructive if at least one example of a recent or current TfD was provided where you consider the addition of the ARS tag to be relevant, needed, useful, ...? Now, we have a discussion if templates are "content" which can be "rescued" somehow, or are just navigational tools, or something else. Furthermore, it is absoluetly unclear if the RfC was in the end about TfD or XfD (including MfD, i.e. userpages and so on? What would the ARS do with userpages?). I don't believe the RfC has a consensus or that it could be clear what the conclusion was in the end. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    TfD vs. XfD, this was technically regarding TfD a seperate discussion likely should take place to see if this speaks to XfD in general; in spirit I think it does but I'm also in no rush to use it elsewhere as we have a lot of housecleaning first. And no, if there is disagreement that there is consensus here I think it would just serve to cloud the issues to quibble on example X vs example Y. ARS' involvement in TfDs was questioned and answered so either that answer is accepted as reasonable or not. -- Banjeboi 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Doing... currently reading the discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In general, I agree with Benjiboi's assessment in that there does seem to be a rough consensus for including the templates within the project scope. That aside, the potential benefits of doing so outweigh the concerns, in my opinion as an uninvolved administrator. Fram raised a good point above; an example or two would indeed be useful. As well, it is disappointing that the discussion was bloated with back-and-forth arguing, for lack of a better word, but when it boils down, consensus here seems to be on Benjiboi's side. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Evaluation - I spent quite some time reading the discussion, condensing the arguements, and weighing people's rationale. The signal-to-noise ratio in the comments and replies could have been better, but I think I have a clear picture of consensus. Note that the original proposal concerned TfD, but the majority of the arguments discussed XfD. In my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, there is rough consensus for the following:
    1. All items (XfD) that are "rescuable" (can be improved, cleaned up, sourced, notability demonstrated) should go to the rescue squad (get tagged with {{rescue}}).
    2. Items (XfD) that are not "rescuable" (cannot be improved, cleaned up, sourced, notability demonstrated) must not be tagged with {{rescue}}
    3. Using {{rescue}} (or other means) to canvass for !votes in a deletion discussion must be highly discouraged.
    To implement this, perhaps {{rescue}} should be modified to emphasize that it is only to be used for content that is notable/rescuable and needs cleanup/sourcing/improvement, and using it on "non-rescuable" content, or as a last-ditch effort to bring in "keep" !votes is forbidden. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Re-evaluation in a couple months is not a bad suggestion though. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) +note 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Appreciate this and bit by bit we'll work through this. In reality we have learned that no matter what we do, all templates are abused and misapplied at times. To cause the least disruption we encourage ARS members to simply focus on rescuing items they can and don't stress on the rest. So if someone adds {{rescue}} to something we can't help on? It's ignored or maybe we'll comment on alternatives to why we can't help. One of the efforts that was stalled here because of the edit-warring was creating a "so you've used the rescue tag" as an auto-message for whoever places the tag. This should help in the case of a potential repeat "abuser". Our goal woudld be to get them to add the sourcing and notability or at least understand why an item likely would be deleted (it's not personal). As well as helping them understand wikiways and policies. I know, admirable, but I think it's worth a try. It's also worth noting that when folks make poor comments at XfD, regardless of the nature, they should be address and summarily weighted by the closer. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: As an uninvolved but invited commenter, I couldn't put it better than LinguistAtLarge's analysis.
    (But I will ramble, in case it is helpful...) Any system if abused will start to break, so don't abuse it else ARS will stop being useful altogether. As a side-suggestion, it might be a good idea to offer alternatives for cases where it might be disputed whether something is "rescuable" or not - if you think another editor will seriously doubt the applicability, then instead use the following methods: [list alternatives at the {{rescue}} /doc page and at the WP:ARS mainpage]. Such as, a pointer to one of the WikiProject Deletion sorting lists, so that additional eyeballs can be gathered in an appropriate way. Lastly, if it starts to become an insurmountable problem, agree to reevaluate the change in a few weeks or months. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As another invited but uninvolved administrator, I'll agree that there is a rough consensus. I think A Man In Black is correct to have concerns though. If these TfD alerts only translate into "keep" votes and no actual content improvement, then their purpose would appear to be canvassing only. I'd also caution against the dismissive and even biting treatment AMIB's criticisms received. His views aren't contradictory to this project, but his criteria does seem to be more strident. That's not a bad thing, and I'd argue that his responses here show that he has really thought through what needs rescuing far beyond just voting keep at every AfD. AniMatetalk 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • AMIB has shown a rather persistent disdain for this project and has been causing, IMHO, stress to the project for a long time. They do have some valid concerns but that is seperate from the regular accusations. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Replying with more disdain isn't really addressing this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well I was in the process of trying to address the last set of accusations when you started edit warring to remove a link to a TfD. I think it's clear you don't approve of this project, sticking around to poke and warn us to not break rules seems like a really bad idea. You've offered some constructive criticism at times but that is harder to hear when added with the more divisive issues. Let's agree that you have some valid points but if no one is hearing them it doesn't matter. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Attack, attack, attack, archive. I am "accusing" your proposal of not being a good one, based on your stated goals and reasoning, as well as existing Wikipedia policy. I'm not impugning your good faith or the good faith of the project as a whole; but I don't approve of this proposal. There is tremendous potential for abuse in what this project is allowed to do and in this project's tools, however, and as such a certain level of justification of the good that can be accomplished versus the risk of abuse is necessary. I'm "sticking around" to see that good work done, and "warn" that the tools should not be misused. (Do you have an argument that doesn't involve attacking me?) I'm still uncomfortable with your (lack of) an explanation of what good adding the {{rescue}} tag to non-articles will do, and "bringing more eyes to deletion discussions" is exactly the abuse I've been protesting. That's what canvassing is; bringing a group of like-minded editors to a discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
            • It's really hard to accept anything you have to say when it's delivered in this way. We've had an RfC and consensus has been reached with agreement that {{rescue}} can indeed be used on TfD's. This is what you were edit-warring over and the consensus has gone against your take on the issue despite your repeated assertions of canvassing and abuse - potential or otherwise. Your alarmist approach is unhelpful and now you seem prepared to simply disrupt. I doubt that you can find I've attacked you at all, if you feel i have I apologize. I'm simply trying to do the work that this Wikiproject does which apparently you don't approve. It is also your belief that {{rescue}} doesn't belong on non-article XfDs but this RfC has shown consensus against you there as well. I also accept you may sincerely believe that having more eyes on a XfD is harmful in some ways - perhaps that's a more theoretical discussion for various XfD boards to take up? These beliefs are yours to have and hold as you see fit but how you behave is impacting this project negatively and needs to stop. You threatened me if I posted a TfD link here so I started an RfC to put the issue to rest, consensus has sided that rescue tags can be used on TfDs and this is directly attributable to your helping the community have a discussion centered on this issue. Every question you have stated and every generalized "concern" has also been addressed. Belabouring this further suggests an interest not in improving this project and the work we do but in disrupting the work we do. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
              • You didn't address my argument. You can call me a gaptoothed baboon if you like, but you need to actually address my arguments instead of attacking my person.
                Bringing editors sympathetic to your viewpoint to a discussion is canvassing. You've proposed bringing more eyes to deletion discussions, but the fact is that those eyes are almost always sympathetic to someone who would tag an article for {{rescue}}. (A Nobody saying "Much as I hate to vote for deletion on an article tagged with {{rescue}}..." is an especially clear example.) Bringing this project's eyes onto the deletion discussion, instead of on content that is up for deletion, is not appropriate. A number of closers here have pointed out that this needs to be kept in mind.
                Now, there are some decent arguments for good that can be done on templates that are up for deletion; I respectfully disagree on how many templates are deleted because they are badly implemented versus how many are deleted because they are bad ideas. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Outdent. Despite your claims I still haven't attacked you. I may disagree with you but I respect your right to have and voice your opinion and you seem to be doing so repeatedly. Perhaps we're talking past each here, I'm personally not invested or interested in arguing with you or anyone else. You seem to be holding onto a theory that rescue tag equals canvassing yet the community has generally agrred to allow things to move forward at this time suggesting that if problems appear then perhaps re-address the issue with solid evidence. As for which argument you feel I haven't addressed, I actually have. I think I even repeated it because you asked again. You'll find that informatin in the RfC discussion itself. I'm not sure anyone will ever convince you the rescue tag on TfDs isn't canvassing but luckily there is consensus to allow it so it seems no one has to win you over at this point. -- Banjeboi 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I too was invited, and have no previous involvement. I slogged through the discussion, and found there to be consensus. Here's my take on the canvassing dilemma: The project's name is misleading, focusing on the save, rather than the fix. I think that editors pulled in for a rescue should edit the article without voting in the deletion discussion. That's the purpose of the rescue squad: to fix articles, not be a vote-wielding special interest group. Though the rescuers should be allowed and expected to report in the discussion on what they fixed. Then the closing admin can decide if the changes made address the concerns raised. To avoid conflict of interest, the closing admin should not be on the ARS. The Transhumanist 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reasonable sounding; the easy part first is that closing admins need to be impartial and handle those calls on their end. I wouldn't support restricting how ARS members are involved on the AFD except that policies are followed. The name issue is being discussed but I disagree rescue is more about keep than fix but it's worth noting the concerns. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: the concerns are quite important. The "rescue" group should possibly be retitled to "fixup" (or that their role would be fully clarified) as to their role for fixing-up salvageable content rather than "rescue" anything up for deletion. Maybe "Salvage Review Crew" would be a good re-title.. just sharing my 2 cents. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Such ideas are impractical because AFD is open to all and there is no way to identify and allocate specific roles to the participants. One might wish that all participated in the manner of User:Uncle G who often makes very helpful observations without expressing a Keep/Delete vote. I suppose that he is trying to encourage collegiate research and editing rather than adversarial voting but his is a lone instance of such exemplary behaviour, alas. Current practise is that both the nominator of an AFD and the article's authors are encouraged to participate. The ARS seem more qualified to comment than drive-by per-nom voters, as the process of rescue usually involves careful study of the topic and its sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec)Renaming ideas are helpful but realistically I think rescue is fine. We are, after all the last layer of emergency help for content that will be deleted. Salvage is after an item has been thrown out. Fixup applies to all clean-up projects whereas we specialize in XfD. I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer rescue=vote keep and generally no group should base its naming decisions on a small but persistent group of critics. The LGBT community would be the "We're not all diseased and depraved freaks coalition." Not suggesting you're a critic - you may be I don't know - but these issues have been discussed rather extensively over many many months and all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address til recently when this RfC was enacted to help stop edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • "all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address"? Yeah right, they have been either ignored or supported by the members of the ARS, and only addressed by the "critics". Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Your opinion is duly noted. -- Banjeboi 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)