Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:27, 7 May 2009

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle 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.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion? A: Not exactly. First off, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion? A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Misplaced Pages (other than articles)? A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions? A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing? A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Misplaced Pages. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles? A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Misplaced Pages by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause? This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard.

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 Misplaced Pages". New York Review of Books.

Template:Multidel

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

• WP:ARSMENUS

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

There are currently 714 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

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

Misplaced Pages: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

• Misplaced Pages: 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: Misplaced Pages: Files for discussion
  

Categories for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Templates for discussion
  

Redirects for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Redirects for discussion

Stub types for deletion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Stub types for deletion

Miscellany for deletion

• Main pages: Misplaced Pages: Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion

Search all deletion discussions

About deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Article alerts

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Article alerts

Recognition of efforts

Barnstars project

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

New idea to recognize efforts

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

Example

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 Misplaced Pages! 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 . 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

ARS tools and possible tools discussion

AFD summaries

Candidates for Speed Deletion

Where do I go to make an alert?

{{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

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

See: Template:Misplaced Pages-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Misplaced Pages: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)

Newsletter

Mottos

WP:PRESERVE

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 Misplaced Pages: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, 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 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)

Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article

Moving forward

Proposal text:

Note: Proposal at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Suggestion to add new line. Please comment there. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 7 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)

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

• I second the motion. OlYeller 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you explain what you mean by "issues 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 |  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 |  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. Jaakobou 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: . 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. AniMate 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Jaakobou 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)

A discussion of interest.

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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? -- Banjeboi 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Canvasing rules clearly state it is alright to contact main contributors to an article to work with the Rescue Squadron's goals

The WP:canvassing rules clearly state that you can contact those who made significant edits to an article, to tell them its up for deletion.

Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion; or perhaps to a Wikipedian known for being an expert in a related field and has shown interest in participating in related discussions. A template such as {{Please see}} may help in leaving these notices.

Remember, it isn't possible for editors to have everything they ever worked on, on their watchlist, there just too much stuff to sort through each day. So they won't know that something they contributed heavily to, and surely want to help preserve(by working on the article's issue, and joining in the AFD discussion), is being considered for deletion. You are allowed to contact them to join in the discussion. Dream Focus 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find people willing to work on an article, as is the Rescue Squadron's goals, you can do so by contacting those who have contributed to the article in the past. I thought it relevant to mention it here. Nothing to do with recent events, I just reading the top part of the Canvasing rules, and thinking of this. Dream Focus 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Take canvassing and whatnot are completely off the table; deletion discussions are made by a panel or something.

What is gained by contacting previous editors of the article? If they could improve an article to show notability clearly, wouldn't they have done so already? {{rescue}} brings new eyes to the article, to clean it up. Haven't the old eyes already done what they can? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. For much of the wikipedia's life, you didn't need any proof of notability from any third party media sources. So no one bothered getting it. Even now many work on articles, and never bother with that. And sources aren't always easy to find with a simple Google search. Anyone who has done a significant amount of work on an article, should be notified their work is up for destruction. No AFD should ever be done in secret(yes, its listed, but most won't notice in time, few people checking that list even once a week). Dream Focus 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The notification of editors is susceptible to gaming (both "Oops, I forgot to notify people, oh well" and "Hey, you're related in the most tangential way and you agree with me") and, more importantly, susceptible to laziness. Requiring notification is going to make an already bureaucratic process even more bureaucratic and won't kill the gaming (unless you happen to have a bulletproof definition of "significant contributor" laying around).

How would you notify everyone in a less patchwork manner that articles need to meet such-and-such standard or they risk deletion? "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted" is at the top of the article creation page. The AFD notice is large and obtrusive at the top of the page. The AFD period was recently extended. {{rescue}} already offers links directly to handy resources.

I'm genuinely curious. How do we help people know that unsourced may be taken for unsourcable if they don't do something about it in a way that is not susceptible to gaming? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO even suggests contacting those editors, which about no nominator does. You can't block an editor who does the job of the nominator. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good find! I wonder if someone can make a bot to do that automatically for all articles up for deletion. Since they have a tool listed there, which checks for the most contributions, shouldn't be too hard to grab all those names and send them a message. And in the unlikely event anyone doesn't want to get the message, then they should be able to opt out of it. Where do I go to suggest such a bot be made? Can AutoWikiBrowser do that automatically already? Dream Focus 12:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you determine "significant editor"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of edits and/or size of adds to the article? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What would you tell them, and why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just take a look at WP:AFDHOWTO for standard templates and reasons to post them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines aren't holy writ. I was asking you why you think it's a good idea, or how you would improve on the current way of doing things. I outlined some of the pitfalls of the current practice above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all articles are tagged for WikiProjects. This inludes even topics related to e.g. Star Wars or Pink Floyd where one could think they all are tagged already. No, they're not. So tagging or at least informing the WikiProject seems a good thing to do, if you don't want to keep experts out of the AfD. The article creator should have the article on his watchlist, but if it's a new editor he should be informed about what he can do. I know of several cases where new editors left the project soon after their first articles were deleted. Telling them what they can do seems to be the better choice than running many potentially good editors out of the door. Other editors, who contributed to a nominated article maybe one year ago might not have it on their watchlist but may still be able to improve it. You ask why they didn't do that before - well, it's just a question of time and one of priority. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you tell new editors what they can do?

On a bit of a different tack, how do we better impress on editors that they need to make the notability of notable article subjects clear, so to save everyone the trouble of going to AFD? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{{AFDWarningNew}} Sorry, but I have better things to do on my Sunday than answering your trolling around. Find somebody else to play with... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A shame. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even more being an admin. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The sniping is all well and good, but I'm more interested in who we should contact, why, and how best to do so. I'm an admin, I'm a Wookiee, I'm a radioactive lizard, whatever, I was just trying to get your input on that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My input? You? Why? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Because AFD is a huge amount of heat and oftentimes very little light. I want to find ways to encourage people to do things right the first time, encourage people to fix things they got wrong, and encourage people who can fix something but haven't (yet) to do so. And I want to find ways to reduce the heat, by discouraging people to come to AFD to fight, by making sure people don't come to AFD to get mad at the people who just want to clean up the encyclopedia. More than once, I've had to dig into some sort of off-wiki forum to explain why AFD exists, why articles are deleted, and what people can do to fix them and prevent this. You'll find a lot of forum threads with the header "Misplaced Pages is a bunch of fascists!" with my explanations of what's actually going on hidden on page four or something.

Just bringing people to AFD won't do that, especially if it's done haphazardly, and the current system is a haphazard way of bringing people to AFD without arming them with any knowledge of what's going on. I'm pretty pessimistic about it, because I make a point of dealing with the failed cases. I know that's a limited viewpoint. I wanted to know what you liked about the current way of doing things, and what you think could be done better.

So help me out? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually I'm pessimistic too. The project seems to be against the slightest change in AfD policy, even after several recent cases, User:JamesBurns being the most prominent one. You want a system that's easy enough for newbies to be understood? I want a system that's transparent enough for user's like you and me to look through. A system that can't be gamed that easily for several years without notice. About off-wiki: I don't know even one person who contributes to Misplaced Pages. Of course some use it, as WP articles usually pop up high on Google, but generally people have bad feelings about it - at least all of my friends, relatives and colleagues. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing for a simplification of AFD, but instead trying to find out how we can better arm people to understand why an article would be brought up for deletion and what that means and how they can respond. I feel that's the intent of the notification of article contributors; do you disagree? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

People are not interested in reading policy before contributing to AfDs. The standard templates already in use (but by far not always!) are a poor excuse for accusing newbies at AfDs. Well, they're better than nothing at least. My wish to have understandable and therefore vulnerable nominations, !votes and closures might help newbies to understand AfD policy. Half sentences certainly do not, like everything else included at WP:ATA. It's not the casual editors who have to change, it's us. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how that addresses any of my questions; I'm not sure this is a meaningful dialogue. I suspect I'm not asking the right questions. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think people would understand AfD policy better if there were less nominations like "Article about non-notable band.", less !votes like "delete per nom" and less closures like "the result was delete" - in my eyes that is the problem leading to accusations of Misplaced Pages being fascist. Newbies and casual editors don't know about AfD history, they don't know the inclusion/deletion cabals and troops. I guess they don't even want to know. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

True - not to mention my recent favorite: "Snow Keep per WP:BEFORE." How do we cut down on AfD spamming?!? Radiopathy •talk• 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Getting off on unrelated things. As I pointed out in a conversation with Black Kite recently, when you go to create a new article, it doesn't tell you how to make it first on your user page. If they did that straight away, and explained things clearly to people, there wouldn't be a problem. Don't expect them to navigate through a dozen different things to find out information about that and various policies and guidelines. This will help cut back on the number of new articles created, and nominated, before having time to grow. Dream Focus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, what I meant by AfD spamming is an AfD where the nominator obviously was not familiar with - or convieniently ignores - WP:BEFORE when nominating. Dream Focus's points are well taken. Radiopathy •talk• 18:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do we have a guide to making new articles somewhere? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • ARS doesn't but there is Misplaced Pages:Starting an article. -- Banjeboi 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This seems to be directly addressed by the thread above Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article.

Can this be closed and archived now? It seems opinions have been expressed and an actual change is being discussed under another thread. -- Banjeboi 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• 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:

1. The bot reads the AFD today page a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
2. 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.
3. 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-hexaChord 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-hexaChord 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-hexaChord 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? pablo_hablo. 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. OlYeller 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 Nobody 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 Nobody 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/search/?title=NAME&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages: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, 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot has already been made and approved

Found it: Misplaced Pages: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"

Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.

"I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task" So no one has the coding for this bot.

Ikip (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Automatically adding references to articles

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)

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 "Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 "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)

Archiving methods

Isn't it time automated archiving was set up for this page? The current method is that one editor archives what he doesn't like any more, and keeps here anything which gets his approval. Sections are simultaneously archived and kept here, other sections are archived less than a day after the last post in it... I can give examples if people would prefer those, but I think the general point is more important, that we either get a bot to do it (impersonal, more reliable), or continue to do it manually (more flexible) but with better care or some basic rules. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that the archiving as of late has been irregular and contentious. I suggest we take advantage of one of the bots and set up automatic archiving. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that would screw up prior threads that are still relevant but have been collapsed. And Fram, I've been trying to archive threads to minimize IMHO unneeded drama. I've gotten quite a few offwiki complaints about it and Wikiproject's aren't soapboxes for or against deletionism/inclusionism so I've been trying to focus purely on the work here. That the accusations and disruption has been from two admins is probably the most alarming part but if you're unwilling or unable to work with other editors here we can look to some alternatives. I've been moving and collpsing threads, appropriately, or so I thought but AMIB wanted to say something more in one and for some reason also brought back the one about the sock farm. I'll post a note to that one and see if we can't archive it as well. The other outstanding threads were generally stalled in place because of the TfD RfC which I was hoping we could move on from. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ben. There are a couple of editors who regularly edit here who contribute absolutly nothing to the Article Rescue Squadron project (ironically this is how they approach most articles up for deletion too--they are only there to complain about everyone else's efforts, adding nothing of any value to the article itself).

One in particular has tried everything in his power to derail this project, and harrassed several Article Squadron members.

I wanted to have a ARS poll to topic ban this editor for ARS, and maybe we should still do this. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki complaints are irrelevant, if they have a problem, they should tell so here. And if you want to minimize drama, then don't start throwing "drama" and other uncivil remarks out every time a discussion isn't to your liking, and instead of archiving threads where just prior your incorrect statements have been corrected, it would be better to either acknowledge your errors or just do some research before you make them. Furthermore, there is no reason why the RFC is archived and still on this talk page at the same time, or why the active discussion "Is it appropriate to put a rescue tag on a guideline page?" is removed here and archived twice on the same page, or why there is absolutely no order in the archives, neither in the individual pages (e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 27) or between the pages, making it very, very hard to find an older discussion again. Of course, when the same discussion starts Archive 25 and Archive 26, then it becomes easier again. And Ikip, if you want to discuss an editor, please start a new thread instead of derailing this one. But I don't think that a project that wants to silence its critics will give a very good impression. Fram (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally items are archived as the discussion warrants. It's generally peaceful enough around here minus your and A Man In Black's input that things would be discussed, discussion would die down and we'd mve on. This project's work concerns a tighter time frame s many threads were about a XfD r discussin that was nly active for a short time. The concern of finding something in our archives is the first I think I've ever heard. All the archives link to each other and are generally in a chronological order. A few items were double posted because somene unarchived them and then that discussion was rearchived. In short if you have something to say perhaps saying it once will do the trick, if you are repeating yourself it may be that the issue is much less important to other editors than you. -- Banjeboi 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why archive something if not to be able to find it again in the future? As for chronological order? Archive 24 has a discussion from 16-17 March 2009, 25 Feb - 21 March 2009, 1-6 March 2009, 23-25 March 2009, and 23-27 September 2008... Archive 27: 10-24 April, 29 January, 29 March-4 April, 16-23 April, 17-19 April, 22-23 April, and 13-20 February. The rest of your comments are mostly irrelevant or ironic. Fram (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So um. This fighting is super amusing and all, but the bot archiving? Anyone care? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, don't do it per discussion above. -- Banjeboi 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which part? It's easy to keep a discussion from being archived, just by tagging it with {{unresolved}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An archiving bot sounded good but Im not sure after reading Banjebois comments. On the other issue, I would support a topic ban for anyone who goes about blocking ASR members for no good reason, regardless of any constructive criticism and friendly banter they have to offer the project. Unless of course they undertake to give a lot more thought before issuing any further blocks! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved a number of permanently kept discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Background. Having too many of these makes this page too big and too cumbersome, but having such useful discussions and information gathered in one place instead of over thirty archives is obviously beneficial. This way, this page can be automatically archived, and all good info can be kept together anyway. This probably needs refining, but it's the way most projects work, and creates better archives which much less hassle. Fram (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything that saves time and hassle cant be bad! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case it was. These are issues that are still open and ongoing, those of us looking at long-range planning are still sorting the best way to handle many of these more complex issues. Those threads were collapsed so except for minimal space, the only concern was size and those were pretty small. All in all not an improvement and making things harder for keeping things organized. -- Banjeboi 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then bring back the ongoing ones. There were two sections with posts from March, and there were no posts from April 2009 at all. "Harder for keeping things organized"? At least in this way we could have decent archives. Fram (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We've been archiving manually since the project began and this is the first I've heard that anyone couldn't find something, which is the point of archiving - that you can reference something when you need to. Almost all archiving is inherantly chronological. Threads are generally archived by stale date not start date. This haven't been concerns until recently and once a few of these more voluminous threads die down things should be quite reasonable again. Perhaps adding an archive indeax would make sense so it's easier to access the threads? -- Banjeboi 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As shown above, it is not chronological, neither by start date not by stale date, but more or less randomly. Why would you manually archive things in a haphazard way and then add an index so that people can find anything back in that mess, when you can have a bot doing the same things much better? Your care above was "keeping things organized", but things are not organized now, and no good reason is given why an archive bot is not acceptable. That I am the first to raise this issue is not really indicative of anything: these archives are only read a few times a month, so the less effort is put into them (to create them and to search them afterwards), the better. Fram (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there are demonstrably problems with the current archiving, and solutions for all remarks which lead to opposition against automated (bot) archiving, I have attempted to set up Miszabot to archive this page automatically (discussions without new posts in the last 7 days). All discussions at the top of the talk page will not be automatically archived, as I have added a hidden timestamp in the far future. Once you think these discussions may be archived, you can simply remove the hidden comment. Likewise, new discussions you want to have around for a bit longer can be kept here in the same way. This is the first time I have set up the archivebot, so if there are errors in how I did it, just let me know and I'll try to fix it. The auto-archives should start with #31. If people prefer a longer archiving time, no problem, but since 7 days is the time of AfD's and Prod's as well, it seemed logical. Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your fix creates its own problems. The only "problems" seemed to be early archiving of some threads which you seem to agree can now be aged seven days before archiving. I've added a search option to the archive box to help the stated issue of not being able to find items. Perhaps this will address the assumptions of other editors motives and help us all move forward? -- Banjeboi 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How cooperative to state that my fix creates its own problems, without then listing even one of them, while at the same time misrepresenting the current problems (it's not only "early archiving of some threads", but also "late archiving" of others, which gives us archives without any order, which then has to be fixed through a search box). Anyway, could you, perhaps, please, state what the problems with the archive bot are, so that people can discuss them and see whether they are truly a problem and/or can be fixed? Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're missing each other's thoughts here. You posited that there was a problem and others agreed that waiting a week to archive stale threads seemed a reasonable solution. I've agreed to that compromise. You stated that you feel you couldn't find something? in the archives and we've added a search box to also adddress that. Now you seem concerned that we aren't archiving certain threads fast enough. Sorry, I don't see the problem with that. Not all threads are created equal and it would be foolish not to point out the obvious that your main and possibly only contributions here have been to disparage this project. Hanging around just to help us see how seemingly bad we are seems like a terrible idea and one whose only net result is to cause more disruption. The old system worked fine until yourself and AMIB came along, IMHO, filling up thread after thread with rather pointy and uncivil comments. Valid points - that is, anything constructive - simply got lost in unhelpful "drama". This is not a soapbox or the wild west frontier where we wage battles as Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. All this non-stop prickliness has gotten in the way of actually addressing some solutions to issues that others have been working on while simultaneously making this talkpage rather toxic and unwelcoming. There's a common saying that can apply to the archiving concern, if it ain't broke don't fix it. You've pointed out three concerns and others have agreed and I've fixed two of them. The third, essentially archiving all threads exactly seven days stale doesn't work here as many of these items are on hold. I see no reason to further change what had been working up until recently and your other stated concerns have been addressed so I'm left feeling you wish to simply engage as you have done on seemingly every other thread and that holds little interest I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"I've agreed to that compromise"? I must have missed that agreement then, last I noticed was that you denied any problems, and only added a search box, which is helpful but insufficient. There are disputes over when to archive things: you state that the bot would archive some things too early, I state that you archive some things too soon and some too late, but that the bot at least can be made not to archive any section pretty easily, with future timestamps. This system works for every other project talk page I know of, from the contentious ones like WP:ANI to the more mundane ones. I can't help but feel that it is you who wants to object, simply because I made the proposal, and even though other people like Jclemens and FeydHuxtable have no problems with this. But I'm glad you've brought the old "drama" up again, that's really helpful. This page now is 250Kb long, so perhaps we do have some archiving problem after all...Fram (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have poked at a sore subject. I would like to archive some of the itms that seemed to have run their course but a rough consensus is that we should wait a week to let things go stale. Up until recently this really hasn't been an issue. I'm hoping it won't be again as the recent events have delayed actions, and thus archiving other items. I pretty much would have the same response to the general idea of auto-archiving regardless of who presented it. Personally I see the volume n this page as a symptom of larger issues beyond ARS but I'm choosing to work on teh areas that I am best able. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Large numbers of country relationships articles nominated for deletion in a short period of time

I see some of the articles have Rescue tags, and have been worked on, and plenty are there to have them saved. However is it possible to save all of them in time?

Some editors have nominated a vast number of these types of articles within a short time period.

In one of these articles, Algeria and Cyprus relations the president of one nation mentioned to the other his people wanted to reunite the countries. Now obviously, that makes it notable. I'm wondering how many other articles out there might be deleted, because of the fact that it is far easier to simply nominate something for destruction, instead of searching for some facts. Most of these articles I have seen thus far, are obviously worthy of keeping.

My case is this:

• Any relationship between two countries is notable.
• If you speak the language of either nation, you can easily search their newspapers, it highly unlikely that not a single notable event happened between them throughout their history.

So I'm asking for any who speak another language, to please look over this rather large collection of articles nominated, and briefly search for newspaper articles about them. It shouldn't take long to do. Dream Focus 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to talk to User:Marcusmax one of the more active new ARS members. He and I have worked on several of these articles.

There is: Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations now. In which editors attempt to rewrite these articles.

This is the reason why WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE need to be enforced. 99.9% of the time these editors who put up articles for deletion make no effort to improve the article first. I could prove this easily with little research on my random day of deletions page, here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, but I know it would persuade no one, as no amount of research has. Ikip (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you 100%, I am possibly starting to see these Afds violate WP:POINT, as some of the reasons for the afds are just trying to get the articles deleted without even checking for content. Me along with Ikip and a few others have rescued a fair amount of these articles, and I know for a fact that about 75% of these have verifiable material however many look right past it and before you know it a salvageable article is lost. Not only are these afds sometimes uncalled for but they are also harming the afd system. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

it is not WP:POINT and you're not assuming good faith here. I don't nominate most X-Y bilateral relation articles that I come across (although there are probably 100s if not over 1000 in existence) but I would say over 70% I've nominated have been deleted. those that have been saved have proven notable relations from sources. having said that I've also created about 6 new bilateral articles and plan to create more when I have the time. I strongly disagree that "Any relationship between two countries is notable." using some guidelines I've been using Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I never once mentioned you in particluar were arguing a point there are plenty of users who might be arguing a point. I am one of the most civil wikipedian's around and in no way am I blaming you nor any one person as arguing a point. It should be noted that I have taken, I believe 4 days off of wikipedia so I can remain a civil person as obviously some of these afds are turning me into somweone I don't want to be. So no hard feelings, Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 14:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. no hard feelings, I certainly think you are doing a good effort in AfD providing valid reasons for keep. Some (and it's a minority) editors are not backing their claims for keep with reliable sources. My goal is that we have a good concise set of X-Y country articles, but that does not mean all combinations. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this rescue of the many country relations articles being proposed for deletion, and I also don't think you said any type of personal attack to anyone Marcusmax (some editors just happen to take things too personal). I'd be available to help out with any Spanish-language relations that might need verification; recently, I was able to find Spanish-language information that helped save the Peru-Bulgaria relations article that was about to die due to the lack of search that the people proposing and supporting the delete did.-- (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:MarshalN20, I am going to post the relevant portion of this message at:

Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please begin by killing three memes? First: no, not all bilateral relations are notable; that is well established by dozens of discussions already. Second: no, saying "sources might be out there in Swahili in a Mombasa warehouse or in Thai somewhere in Bangkok" doesn't help at all, and ignores the fact that the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to supply evidence of notability. Third: no, there is no one arguing for deletion of "all" such articles, just the ones lacking notability. - Biruitorul 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a flip side to those three statements Biruitorul. On the central discussion its been said that if consensus was there at least one would "support deleting all bilateral relations articles". As you say each time an AfD ends in deletion it establishes a precedent that makes further deletion easier to achieve. Yes the burden of proof is on those who want to keep these artilces and it takes a long time to search for sources especially when you know they're going to under close scruntiny. Counter wise its takes very little time to nominate large numbers of articles for deletion. This is why we need some kind of new guideline to help protect these entries, otherwise many will inevitably lost as its too much work to save them considering the rate they're being nominated at. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If potentially notable articles are being lost - a very big if indeed - recreating them at a later date is hardly an insurmountable challenge. - Biruitorul 18:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's much easier and considerate to our volunteer editors to have the foundation there to begin with rather than to have to keep starting over. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That statement assumes there's something worth expanding, which in the great majority of the cases that went through AfD, is not true. By that logic, nothing would ever get deleted, on the off-chance it might get improved "someday". - Biruitorul 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Only libelous and copy vio materials should be deleted. Anything that can be verified through reliable sources, even if only enough for stub form are sufficient for a paperless encyclopedia, just as Britannica has the Micropedia and Macropedia volumes. So long as the information is factual and relevant to someone, it is worth keeping. A legitimate research question for people looking in a reference guide is "I wonder if X country has any relations with y country" and even if the article essentially only shows that the relationship is minor, it is still providing a valid service for our readership. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that's notable, can't it be covered in, say, "Diplomatic missions of..." articles? In other words, if there's nothing other than to say "X has relations with Y", surely we don't need separate articles for all the possible permutations. - Biruitorul 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in that case, i.e. where it can be covered elsewhere, then we would merge and redirect. There is a convenience factor for our readers to have as many probably redirects as possible. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the "paperless" argument, another factor is that it is undesirable to have articles that no NPOV editor is watching in the long term. Unlike Britannica's Micropedia we generally don't lock a specific version of an article, so we need to be sure knowledgeable readers will read each article often enough to detect the introduction of doubtful or wrong material. IMO this isn't quite the same as notability. For example if Bulgaria has really maintained an Embassy in Luanda since 1976, I can accept there is/was something notable (at least from Bulgaria's point of view) about Angola–Bulgaria relations. But I find it hard to believe that the article will be sufficiently monitored in the decades to come. If anyone PRODed it in 2011, who would notice? - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the "paperless" argument, or at least not in your final words. This is the Internet, and just as you are afraid that anybody could show up and edit an international relations article incorrectly, you can be sure that there will also eventually be someone who will fix the article either towards a better direction or simply put it back to the way it was. Things such as these could not happen in a long paper/book encyclopedia; if errors were found, it would take the next edition to fix them. It only takes the click of a button to fix them in the Internet.-- (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20, I understand more tedious detail about collaborative version/verification issues than you would ever want to discuss. It's been an issue for intermittently connected data synchronization scenarios (e.g. in CRM and ERP) for well over a decade, and the solution is usually some sort of data quality team to review changes. In Misplaced Pages, that layer is provided informally by knowledgeable readers being able to read/correct articles, and slightly more formally by editors' watchlists. My point is that when an article is so obscure that neither of these models will correct errors reasonably quickly—much quicker than "eventually"—it can't be relied on and probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, even though it is in fact notable. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Pointillist; let me also note that many of these articles fall afoul of WP:BTW, in that there's no place from which to link to them. Take, for instance, Bulgaria–Peru relations. Is there any article that could possibly link to this one? Of course not - it's destined to sit there in isolation, at least until a future AfD takes care of it. - Biruitorul 23:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See below, it is obvious that no reference is adequate enough for you Biruitorul. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointillis, you make mention of a problem that has been around for "well over a decade," and yet you expect to fix this problem by massively deleting articles that are notable and important for an encyclopedia to pick? Like I mentioned earlier, I am sure that there are indeed certain articles that are not notable, but it's not all of them. Considerin the lack of research people proposing and supporting the AfDs give, this matter becomes further disgusting as a way to simply delete articles for the sake of allegedely "fixing a problem" that will continue to be rampant for several more decades. I understand your point, however, about the obscurity of certain articles, but, once again and at the stake of being redundant, not all of the x-y relations articles are obscure or pointless.-- (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, Pointillis only made "one" point (Not "Points"), and your obsession with the Bulgaria–Peru relations article is becoming a little bit worrying.-- (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, please mind WP:NPA and focus on content, not contributors, and do not make false accusations. MarshalN20, you are free to worry - no one's stopping you. Bulgaria–Peru relations was, is and is destined to be rubbish; delenda est! - Biruitorul 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good then, you're entitled to your opinion. I suppose that just as you know more about the Misplaced Pages policies than I do, you also know more about rubbish than I do.-- (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Very questionable AfDs

Currently there are 77 country relationship articles up for deletion, posted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, put up for deletion by a handful of editors. There is absolutly no effort at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE in any of these articles.

User:LibStar admits above that "only 70%" of his AfDs are being deleted.

Biruitorul, despite disingeously saying

"If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens."

...No matter how many references are provided Biruitorul never reconsiders his deletion. User:WilyD provided 36 references for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations and 15 references in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Romania – Saudi Arabia relations and Biruitorul dismissed them. He also calls an editor "disruptive", another's edits "annoying and irrelevant "

In addition, there is a JamesBurns type of sock involved in many of these article deletions. (I am contacting the editor who exposed JamesBurns. Maybe he can expose others)

A couple of issues:

1. Where can I report this to get results? WP:AFD will give me the regular response. WP:ANI maybe the same.
2. Are WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE just words? 99.9% of AFD nominators never follows this. How can WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE be enforced?
3. When does an editor cross the line between constructive editing and senseless deletion of other editors contriubtions?

I am really not interested in our two critical admins comments, but I will inevitably get them. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please comment of content, not on contributors. You've shown no independent, significant coverage at that AfD (where I generously offered to strike entries for which you found sources); not assuming good faith on my part will not bolster your argument one bit. - Biruitorul 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling other editors "disruptive" and another's edits "annoying and irrelevant " is commenting on the content?Ikip (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, please stop hounding me - this is getting to be too much. - Biruitorul 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The place to report it is in the AFD. The way to enforce WP:BEFORE is to do the work yourself, and WP:PRESERVE is already enforced by no consensus favoring keep. There is no "senseless deletion of other editors' contributions" line because it can't happen without forming a firm consensus to delete. If you want to defend something, the burden is on you to defend it with evidence.

Ultimately, this sort of article is why this project needs to exist, and rescuing them by improving the articles is laudable work. Poorly conceived, poorly executed, but potential notability. Remember, the job is to fix these articles so that they're useful to readers, not to make policy to ensure they aren't deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting editor has copy and pasted the same text in over 100 AfDs. Ikip (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been deleted twice by A_Man_In_Black. Ikip (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you canvassing people to come support you in your call to have an editor banned has been deleted. Thrice. WP:ARS is not your personal army. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as quick note, I don't think anyone could seriously regard the ARS as Ikip's "personal army" as the members of this group do not always agree with each other in AfDs; even I have argued to delete rescue templated articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An issue we're facing recently is the mass nominating of clearly valuable articles. These bilateral relations articles are time consuming to improve – there will often be hundreds of results from searches for sources, but only a few of them will be suitable for use in the articles. We at the ARS have high standards for our work, we dont just dump sources on articles without carefully review and selection. As things stand we’re overwhelmed, especially as some of us only have limited wiki time. Ikip is right to raise these policy related issues, the encyclopaedia will suffer if valuable content keeps getting deleted because we dont have time to rescue all the worthy cases sent to AfD. A change to policy may be the only effective solution.

Also Man in Black, please stop deleting ikip's posts, we're quite capable of doing our own housekeeping. And please dont make false accusations against members of this project - no ones trying to get anyone banned that I can see, allthough it may be neccessary to pursue dispute resolution if certain administrators aparently hostile to this project dont stop throwing their weight around.FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then save the ones you can, and the ones that can't be saved can trivially be undeleted when you do find something. The important work is not the fighting; the important work is the writing. If you want a whole slew of them for userspace, I'm game, as are dozens of admins. It's not like anything is lost forever, and there's no harm of offending the article creator because said creator is no longer with us. There's no failing to keep up, because most of the ones which are deleted have no useful information not contained in the title (and let me know the ones that do have useful info and I can undelete).

As for the rest, "we" includes me. This is not the place to advertise discussions of editor conduct. WP:RFC, WP:ANI, WP:AN, and WT:AFD are all more appropriate. I am hostile to attempts to use this project as a personal army, but eminently sympathetic to editing articles so that they don't suck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A Man in Black's removal of the notifications. The ARS is an a rescue squadron, and ought to be concerned with developing articles to an acceptable standard in a short space of time, not investigation matters internal to AfD, which is a separate project. We have enough issues with public perception as it is. Skomorokh 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar admits above that "only 70%" of his AfDs are being deleted I'm happy to admit that, I stand by my nominations are respect the final decision reached by the AfD process. Ikip, I feel that you have issues with the whole AfD process, perhaps you need to ask that the AfD process be totally revamped, I heard of one editor ages ago who believed there should be no deletion except in the case of hoaxes. where is the proof that "99.9% of AFD nominators never follows this " LibStar (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close Bilateral international relations thread

Opinions have been expressed and some good points raised. However there is both a task force and a centralized discussion where constructive input should be taken and possibly used;

• Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force

There is a very large number of these articles (hundreds, I believe) and a rough consensus was to not bundle multiples in one AfD. Ergo dozens will be flowing through and each will have it's own due consideration. Some may be tagged for rescue and when they appear this project will do what we can. If there is credible evidence of abuse by editor(s) AN or ANI is the most logical place if not WT:AFD. Also Misplaced Pages:Translators available may be able to help find/translate sources although I suggest that route as a cumbersome and slow solution.

I therefore propose we close this thread and direct those interested to invest energies in finding ways forward. -- Banjeboi 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support close. as nom. -- Banjeboi 11:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Polls, evil, etc. but I think we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thirded - best that these are addressed by the specific taskforce mentioned by Benjiboi above: with a couple of hundred countries there are likely to be a lot more of these bitateral articles coming down the pipe. pablo_hablo. 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Old bot idea

I found this at AfD: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_42#Bot_Idea

"I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at User:TheFearow/RefBot".

I don't know what happened to this idea ... Ikip (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It was probably abandoned for {{find}}. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Red cunt hair

Just a heads-up; the previously rescued Red cunt hair has now been deleted; I've taken it to DRV here because I don't see a consensus in the AfD - but it's not looking too good.  Chzz  ►  19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd pitch this as canvassing (hey guys, come back me up at DRV), but a comment made there bears discussion. "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly." Where did this attitude come from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where that came from. ARS is chartered to make improvements on articles that are salvageable. We're no more chartered to sit as judges on any article than any other editors are. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If the article was rescued, and then got deleted anyway, against consensus, then it does affect all of us. You can't have rogue editor ignoring everyone in the AFD, and deciding on their own what to do, or the consensus system becomes irrelevant. Dream Focus 10:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"ignoring everyone in the AFD", that is, except for those that supported deletion, I suppose? Anyway, this deletion review is already at the correct venue, i.e. DRV: the ARS has nothing to do with that process. Fram (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the majority, I should've said. There was obviously no consensus for delete. Dream Focus 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A majority of 11 keeps vs. 10 deletes. Of course, AfD's aren't a votecount and strength of arguments is more important than raw numbers, so it may well be that we have an admin who hasn't ignored anyone or any opinion, but given them all the weight they deserve, or it may be that we have an admin who has misjudged the closure, without being "rogue" and so on. But again, that's a case for DRV, not for ARS. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that in your reply to me, you for some reason included the edit summary ""Red cunt hair" 12,600 hits on Google". It's not really useful to make such arguments in edit summaries, and it is hardly relevant anyway, since "black cunt hair" also gives more than 10,000 hits. Fram (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't clear: is there an opportunity and a need to improve a threatened article? If not, why is this section here? --Kizor 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To canvass inclusionists, just like everything else on this page. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's both incivil and untrue. If you want your move proposal to be taken seriously, such open and unjustified antagonism isn't helping. Jclemens (talk)`

The comments on that DRV suggest that he's right, however. Black Kite 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments to one DRV suggest that everything on this page exists to canvass inclusionists? For certain non-traditional interpretations of "everything", perhaps, but not in any meaning I routinely use. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Get bent. In the absence of anything relevant to the scope of the Squadron, I'm tagging this as resolved. Discussion about scope and scope creep could be topical in its own section, though. I'll personally stay out of it but will try to rescue a couple of articles instead. --Kizor 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. In this case I don't see what we can do without actually being able to work on the article but making blanket accusations against the whole project seems less than productive. If the article did exist 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 Misplaced Pages in this manner. Jumping on editors for stepping out of form seems likely over-reacting. If closers on AfD and DrV can't adequately weight the many facets of a discussion that is a different issue that ARS has no control over. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, one more incident where nearly everyone agrees that it is canvassibng, but you don't... DRV is about the AFD closure, not about the merits of the article, so imprvong an article during a DRV would have no effect on the discussion, as it is irrelevant. The only thing you can do on a DRV is argue that the closer interpreted the diuscussion incorectly, which has nothing to do with the ARS. Of course labelling all the work of the ARS as canvassing is incorrect, but when you have people who argue that nothing is canvassing, no matter how blatant, then some backlash is to be expected. Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • (sigh) Did I state anywhere that I didn't see this as canvassing? Please stop mischaracterizing me or the work of this project which you apparently disagree at every turn. And you're wrong; ARS does improve articles at DRV even saving a few but more important helping others see that AfD's sometimes close in error and that notable subjects are deleted mistakenly. DRV is not AfD 2.0 but if, for example, the AfD stated no notability, etc but in process of the DRV new sourcing showed notability then the entire issue becomes moot. We don't delete an article just because the process said to, we keep or delete because it's that right result at the time. One reason DrVs are overturned is that opinions were presented with less information that we now have in hindsight. This isnt a battle to keep or delete. This is part of an overall project to serve our readers with the best articles possible. As to the canvassing warning sirens? My point has been confirmed again that by making a huge deal out of it has caused much more drama than simply handling it civilly. Ergo the complaints about the post caused much more divisiness than the post itself ever did. -- Banjeboi 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • "More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. " certainly does not give the impression that you consider this canvassing. And where did I "mischaracterize the work of this project"? Creating a new, adequate article instead of a previously AfD deleted one is normal editing process and does not concern DRV (or ARS). Only when a page is salted can a trip down DRV lane be necessary to get it unsalted. As for drama, you are still the only one going on about this, just like you have not given even one example of an editor who canvassed here and was civilly adressed by you, thereby solving that problem. Fram (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It may make sense to allow the DRV to finish but User:Chzz/Red cunt hair2 is the userfied article. Unsure how similar to the deleted article it is. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise for Hollie Steel

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Proposed move

I propose that this is renamed to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue, for naming consistency with all other WikiProjects. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• neutral I can be persuaded both ways. Ikip (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, after a bruising WP:ANI all day today posted by AMIB (because I posted a link here), I think that renaming would give the project more legitimacy. Other wikiprojects regularly post links to afds etc. on their talk pages, and no one seems to care. I really can be persuaded the other way, but I think it is a good idea for the project, and will blunt some of the criticism. How about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rescue Squadron? We wanted to get rid of "article" anyway, up above. Ikip (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• oppose Unlike many other projects we're not devoted to any one topic, our mission is to save valuable content for the encyclopaedia as a whole, so our unusual name seems appropriate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Being a collaborative enterprise in the Misplaced Pages namespace does not a WikiProject make. Skomorokh 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Using WikiProject banners kind of does, though. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  In form only. If it alleviates your worries, I've converted the header to a {{tmbox}}. Skomorokh 19:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds. Why don't we rename WP:AN to Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Administrators Noticeboard? Because, like ARS, it's not a group of editors aligned to take care of one particular topic or issue, but an integral part of the maintenance of Misplaced Pages. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "an integral part of the maintenance of Misplaced Pages"? I never thought about it that way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sure. Like WP:3O, it's a problem resolution service staffed by volunteers which doesn't need administrative tools to function. 3O deals with content disputes, ARS deals with articles nominated for deletion that at least one user believes are inclusion-worthy, by editing them to make them suck less. Also like 3O, ARS has no "to do" list, but reacts to issues as they are raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Unlike a Wikiproject, 3O has no ownership. There are people who regularly comment at 3O, but it doesn't have any members or maintainers. ARS, on the other hand, has a clear membership, coordination of efforts, group projects, etc., much as a Wikiproject does.

  How would you respond to this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  That the similarities between ARS and 3O (and similar maintenance efforts) outweigh the differences, which have been given WP:UNDUE weight in your characterization. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  NPOV doesn't really apply to policy discussions, heh. I'd be curious to know what your definition of a wikiproject is, and why ARS doesn't fit. My definition is a group of editors coordinating their efforts on articles to serve a common cause (in this case, improving articles up for AFD). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Something interesting I discovered... I'm not a member. Funny thing, I've done as much work for ARS as I have for 3O, which doesn't even have a membership list. Guess I haven't been that much of a joiner; that might color my viewpoint. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support makes sense, and "squadron" is a silly name that furthers the already bad perception of this group. Verbal chat 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  What bad perception? Article Rescue Squad is the place to be, and to be seen at! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Man. If ARS is the Studio 54 of Misplaced Pages I'm going to have to get a sequined shirt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the "Squadron" in the name, I would have completely ignored the Talk Page message inviting me here. Sherurcij 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The name is fine and there really isn't set rules on naming conventions. WAR (Wikiproject Article Rescue) is a terrible idea for an acronym for this or any Wikiproject is we aren't a battleground despite some editor's interest in such activities. We just recently had a discussion on renaming so it may may sense to review what went on there. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Benjobi. Also WP:WAR is already widely used. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose due to what has already been said. I do have to comment, though, that the "Squadron discussion" held above had its bit of funny.-- (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been mainstream news coverage under (I assume) the current name, which means they think it's catchy. As for "bad perception of this group" above, that was written by someone involved in major deletionist editing of an article about which I've inquired below. Those who remember the deletionist "Spoiler police" squad of 2007 may consider an inclusionist 'Fire & Rescue' analogy squadron entirely appropriate. Milo 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't a real WikiProject, and shouldn't pretend to be one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's rather uncivil and unhelpful, perhaps striking through some of that would be more in keeping with our civility policies. -- Banjeboi 12:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Broda Otto Barnes

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, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 , so far supported only by WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning at talk . 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)

Other wikiprojects are conducting themselves the exact same way as ARS is, with absolutely no criticism

I would suspect that editors in other wikiprojects are pretty much free to post whatever links they want. I have never been involved in other wikiprojects, but I think I may investigate this. I know Wikiproject videogame is a very vibrant and popular page...Ikip (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Over 150 more examples
• The word deletion in wikiprojects: 4984 times.
• The word AFD in wikiprojects: 2414 times.

What is amazing in all of these DRV and deletion discussions, some several pages long, is there is no argument that these discussions should or should not be taking place on these pages. These editors actively argue deletion strategies and tactics, with no repurcusions. What is also amazing is that many of these wikiprojects do the same thing we do: actively save or delete articles, the only difference is, is that their focus is much narrower.

I am tired of the blatant hypocricy of our critics. No other project gets as much scrutiny and nit picking as article rescue squadron does. No other wikiproject has been put up for deletion 3 times.

Maybe from now on, if someone comes and complains about this project, we simply refer them to the now dormant Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion, and tell them to restart that project.Ikip (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good stuff. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of creating a special FAQ page for this page, incorporating some of this information, whenever someone comes here to complain about, for example, canvassing, or that what we are doing is outside of our project, etc. We can simply refer them to this FAQ. Instead of having to deal with the same complaints repeatedly. Ikip (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't bet on it helping, but it's a good idea anyways. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate it. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I've reached my limit on this subject but I can manage to muster a grunt of agreement. Personally, I'm moving towards just ignoring. OlYeller 04:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• "These editors actively argue deletion strategies and tactics, with no repurcusions. " There are no such repercussions, because viewpoints aren't met with "Maybe from now on, if someone comes and complains about this project, we simply refer them to the now dormant Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion, and tell them to restart that project." If you went to WP:VG with a decent argument for dismantling WP:VGSCOPE, for example, you'd get criticism of your argument and ideas on how to use your ideas, not "Make your own project, you're not welcome in ours."

  Similarly, those projects have a topic, and as a practical matter include all editors interested in that topic, whether or not their names are on a "members" list or not. Their viewpoint is largely that of all editors interested in the subject. What's WP:ARS's subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • AMIB, I think you would be much more welcome at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion. Your continued disruption has been brought up here numerous times. Although this is a minor issue, your views on articles appear to be starkly counter to this project, for example see AMIB's new essay: WP:NUKE. That said, I can't emphasize this enough (and predictably you make this the main counterpoint), this is not about AMIB views, this is about your actions within this project.

    This has nothing to do with whether an editor is or is not on a membership list, this has everything to do with continued harrassment, hounding and disruption, at a level that no other wikiproject has to endure.

    For the past several months, AMIB has been the editor spearheading this disruption. ENOUGH. AMIB, you are welcome to go and restart Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion.

    Unfortunately, AMIB probably won't leave willingly. Ikip (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I have added a FAQ tag, which links to this page, Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ. I welcome good faith edits to this page, in fact, please mercilessly edit this page. Ikip (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • "Get lost, deletionist" would be exactly what I was referring to. And you linking to an old version of an incomplete, currently mostly tongue-in-cheek essay doesn't really show anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion is that way >>> 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I'll also thank you to stop separating people into "members" and "critics" and only allow for one group to edit things. If you call for good-faith edits, expect to get them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, errors on other pages don't make it correct to do the same here, obviously. 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. People on the project often disagree on what to keep or not anyway (on WP:FICT, Hiding and I are often taking opposite positions, even though we are both active members of the comics project). E.g. in the current archive, there are two such neutral messages. I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here. Fram (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• LOL ERRORS? My lord, how can you call these "errors": it is the status quo. What the errors are, is the way that critics criticize this project. I appreciate many of your comments here. But, Fram, I think you would be more comfortable at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion. If you stay here, I think you need to accept that DRV notifications, AFD notifications, and deletion discussions are an acceptable part of all wikiprojects. Ikip (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll choose the projects I care to hang around for myself, thank you. I am quite aware that you are trying every way you can imagine to get people critical of some things here removed from this project and talk page, but that's not how it works. I notice that when uninvolved people come here or discuss it elsewhere, they often tend to agree when it concerns e.g. the canvassing aspect of some posts here. You are free to come to any project you like and react against canvassing that happens there (whether for keeping or deleting things), just like I am free to do the same here. But congratulations on you finding a canvassing post to the comicsproject from early 2007 where the first reply was to send the editor to the correct venue, i.e. DRV, with the additional remark "Honestly, remember that this isn't 'your' site. All of us have had hard work deleted, and while we don't always agree with it, if the majority comes down and says 'this goes', then it goes." Hardly a ringing endorsement of canvassing... But I admit it, one post from 2007 indicates that that project obviously has the same persistent problem as the ARS talk page has... Fram (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The harrassment and disruption has reached its zeinth. I applaud Ben for being so patient for so long, but I think enough is enough.

      I am simply suggesting your views maybe appreciated more at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion. I don't have a problem with you continuing editing here, if you acknowledge that this project get the same benefits of all wikiprojects. I disagree with most everything you say, but thats okay. I applaud you for not participating in this harrassment and disruption. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      • I am not interested if my views are appreciated or not, I am not here to discuss things with likeminded people only. Healthy projects need people with different points of view, to keep things balanced, and to better know the thoughts and opinions of other factions and individuals in the Misplaced Pages community. As for "this project gets the same benefits of all wikiprojects": no, only wgere applicable. You (plural) don't want to be treated like any other wikiproject (e.g. by putting your tags on the article page instead of the talk page), and sometimes with good reason. But this may also imply that in some situations, you don't get the benefits other projects have. But specifically for canvassing and so on: I have stated and state again that neutral notices about XfD's within the scope of the ARS are generally acceptable (e.g. "X is up for deletion. I wonder if it would be useful to tag it for the ARS?" is acceptable: however, if some people then would rush to the discussion to vote keep, without improving the article to address the problems, adn if this would be a recurring action, then this appraoch may have to be rethought). This is the same as I would state for any project. Fram (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Every organization has social norms, rules, and ways they conduct business. If you don't like the way things are done at the ARS at this point, as far as what you call "canvassing", report it to an outside party. Because I suspect it will continue, and may even increase, despite your objections here.

          ARS should not have to continue to go through unprecedent scrutiny ad nasium by editors whose edit history shows they are opposed to the very spirit of the project. Of the hundreds of wikiprojects, no other wikiproject has had to endure the harrassment that this project has.

          Now that the line is drawn, its time to come up with solutions when it is crossed again. Ikip (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

          • I don't see anyone present who's opposed to the spirit of improving articles. I see lots of disagreement over how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It would be better if you stuck to discussing projects, rules, interpretations, ... and avoided discussing editors, certainly when you are again wrong about what I am or think. I have saved articles which were up for deletion, I have created quite a few articles, written DYKs and GA-class articles, improved other articles, and so on. I am not planning on changing my Misplaced Pages behaviour anytime soon. Fram (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • "… scrutiny ad nasium …"??? Dude, nobody's looking up your nose. pablo_hablo. 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• I know I've clashed with WP:ALBUMS and WP:CFB before over (what I perceive to be) excessively inclusionist attitudes, so don't worry, you folks aren't the only project I don't get on with :) Stifle (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I said it at Deletion Review, and I repeat it here: Don't take the attempts by a battleground-seeking minority to pervert the ARS into something that it is not, as evidence that it actually is, or is intended to be by non-battlers, what it is not. And don't think that simply because you disagree with Ikip you therefore disagree with many people here. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple rebuttal

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. Come to WP:FOOTY some time: almost anything posted as an AfD notice there is eventually deleted. Even on projects where more members are of the inclusionist bent (WP:DND comes to mind), deletion discussions are posted there to alert experts on the subject matter.

This is manifestly untrue of this page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yet, we end up with how many AFDs in which most of the deletes come from those who have no knowledge or the subject under discussion, are unwilling to look for sources anyway, and don't care even if sources do turn up. It seems that in at least most of my experiences, a minority of experts (however we define that here) on the subjects ever comment in the respctive AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you want to encourage people to stick to deletion policy at AFD, AFD Patrol is thataway. We deal in article rescue here. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am glad that you acknowledge that it is okay to post Deletion discussion, AFDs, etc, on almost every wikiproject but this one. Is there any other exception on wikipedia but this page?

  Also, it seems that you and Fram need to sit down and discuss, why, in Fram's eyes, posting Deletion discussion, AFDs, etc is wrong: "errors on other pages don't make it correct to do the same here, obviously. 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." Of course, Fram will argue that there is no contradiction. Ikip (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Ikip, as you can read in the quote you just gave, I argue that posting deletion discussions and so on which fall under the scope of the project is not wrong, only that posting non-neutral notices or notices which do not fall under the scope of a project is wrong. Please don't misrepresent my opinion. Fram (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What is the scope of this wikiproject? To save articles, again the only difference between our project and comic books, is ours is wider.

      Please clarify, can we all agree that any and all projects which have a narrow subject, can post AfDs, DRVs, etc?

      There is a pretty wide gray line between: "come and keep X" and "X is up for deletion". Ikip (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      • The aim of the ARS is to improve articles (or "content", if you prefer) that is up for deletion in XfD. The aim of the ARS is not to save articles as such, but to save articles by improving them so that they meet the relevant policies and guidelines. As for the gray line: it is best to stay as far away from it as possible, to avoid even the impression of canvassing. And wrt posting AFD's: all AfD's posted for rescue are already listed on this talk page, and on the user talk page add-on many of you have, and on the category for ARS tagged pages, and on the main project page. Additional listing of this page here, certainly when enhanced by comments inviting people to help keep the article at the AfD, are unnecessary and canvassing. Listing pages outside the scope of the ARS (e.g. pages where a merge is discussed) is also canvassing. It's really not that hard: if a message is perfectly neutral and clearly within the scope of the project, then it is not canvassing. Everything else will have more and more shades of canvassing, sometimes explicit, sometimes more implicit, and should be avoided and discouraged. Fram (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, can we all agree that any and all projects which have a narrow subject, can post AfDs, DRVs, etc?

          It gets rather draining to have editors whose edit history tends to be counter to this project goals and ambitions, telling us members of ARS what the aim of ARS is. I sincerely feel that your talents and intellect would be best utilized in a project that matches your views. This is not that project. 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

          • Us and you again. What does someone have to do to qualify to be a member? In most Wikiprojects, the mere willingness to watchlist the project page is membership. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I have replied to your question over and over again, you'll have to ask a different question if you want a different answer. As for my edit history; I don't see how it is "counter to this projects goals and ambitions", since I have saved articles at AfD, sourced articles, written articles (including a number of DYKs and two GAs), ... That I have also deleted many pages and nominated a lot for deletion does not mean that I don't support the ARS in principle. "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." This is what I have tried throughout my years here, just like, I hope, everyone else. Fram (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• ←(A Nobody 08:56) "It seems that in at least most of my experiences, a minority of experts (however we define that here) on the subjects ever comment in the respective AfDs." I think you're onto something. Deletionists of no special expertise hang out at "Articles for Deletion" because that function is in the name of AfD. But inclusionists of no special expertise have no 'Articles for Inclusion' to hang out at. That creates an imbalance of excess deletionism. Thus it's logical and beneficial for project neutrality to have a venue like Article Rescue Squadron for inclusionists of no special expertise. (Not that I'll admit to that :) Milo 09:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That is nonsense, based upon a wholesale mischaracterization of who "hangs out" at AFD that I know several editors will laugh at for its erroneousness. Please stop trying to turn the ARS into a battleground with this namecalling nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• The ARS themselves could solve this problem at a stroke.
  • Identify those ARS members who aren't sticking to the ARS guidelines (i.e. never, or hardly ever, improving articles so that they survive AfD) and who instead are merely block voting "Keep" on AFDs (especially when those !votes are of poor quality), repeatedly canvassing for such votes, or agitating or wikilawyering over deletion related issues.
  • Remove them from the list of ARS members and tell them that their "efforts" aren't needed here.
  • Problem solved.
• Black Kite 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, an unpreceded purging of members. I wonder if such a strict suggestion has ever, in the history of wikipedia, been suggested on any other wikiproject. but then again, ARS is unique in the level of scrutiny, criticism, and harrassment it recieves, to cite one of many examples, no other wikiproject has gone to MfD three times. Again, those editors whose philophy is counter to this project, there is an opposing project that has laid dormat for some years now. Ikip (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You've suggested that two people leave in this very talk page section. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion is not an opposing project. This project is about article rescue. It is not AFD Patrol, nor Deletion Sorting, nor an "-ism" advocacy medium.

      I suggest thinking long and hard about making further accusations against other people of "hypocrisy". I also suggest asking yourself a question that it is time everyone on this talk page asked xyrself: What was the last article that I actually did article rescue work on? Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • That seems awfully unwelcoming and uncivil. In theory we would coach "problematic" editors to show them why empty !votes perhaps caused more harm than good. Unsure why this project would take a step to police its own members in such a way. Frankly this would seem a better WP:AFD overall issue to identify and target all editors who make empty !votes but even that may cause more problems than it solves. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Another solution would be to select a moderator from the existing members who'll remove canvassing notices and counsel those involved about the correct role of the squadron. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not about the AFD discussion contributions. Black Kite is talking about ARS "members" who aren't actually doing article rescue, or even focussing upon it on this talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

We seem to have a growing divergence between being an ARS "member" and being an actual, honest-to-goodness, article rescuer. And this divergence has been spurred on by the attempts of a few to turn the ARS into a battleground. The recent efforts (by Ikip, above) to drive away editors who espouse working on articles and who actually have done so in the past have crossed a line, and are unacceptable in my view.

This is not Misplaced Pages:AfD Patrol. It is not Misplaced Pages:Deletion sorting. This is article rescue. And it is time that it was reclaimed by article rescuers, from the people who are trying to turn it into a battleground and pervert it into something that it is not. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press