Misplaced Pages

• 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.

• • Deletion today
  • Undeletion
• • Deletion review
  • Deletion log
• Request a copy of a
  deleted article

• today
• all (sorted)
• closing
• log

• today
• all
• closing
• holding

• today
• all
• closing

• today
• all
  • category
• closing
• speedy
• working
• manual

• today
• all
• closing
• log

• today
• all
• closing

• candidates

• all (sorted)
• BLPs

• • Policy
  • Process
  • Guide (Images)
• Administrator guidelines

• v
• t
• e

I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.

For example:

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Past successful deletion debates

I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.

RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.

I already checked all of the AfDs involving WP:NALBUMS, WP:NSONGS, which is on User:Inclusionist/Del. But would like more specific success stories

travb (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see and help with User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame, which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because

1. Its about the articles, not the editors
2. Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamal 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):

• From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
• And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With John W. Rogers, Jr. yesterday being promoted to Good Article, and counting Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch, I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to WP:GA-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2  07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame, the coding is here:

{{ARS|ArticleTitle}}

You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Inspired by User:Piotrus/Top which is hanging above his talk page). Ikip (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYeller 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYeller 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt, 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.

Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.

Vulture19 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYeller 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablo_hablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYeller 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

Template:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}}

This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:

• Category:WikiProject Films newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Cats newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Hawaii newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Biography newsletters
• Category:WikiProject India newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Led Zeppelin newsletters
• Category:WikiProject The Beatles newsletters
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project?

TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Misplaced Pages editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Jack Merridew 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;

Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stricken. Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:

It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. (Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)

Simple and direct are both good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.

  — Winston S. Churchill

I like that one. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again:

Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. Fram (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what I've been considering to be our motto?

The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --Kizor 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Luv it. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Word, I like this one. OlYeller 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYeller 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. Schmidt, 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Misplaced Pages:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:

1. WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
2. Misplaced Pages:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
3. Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Misplaced Pages urges any contributor to read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
4. Misplaced Pages:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
5. Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
6. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
7. Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently when an editor attempts to create a new article, they get this message:

• Before creating an article, please read Misplaced Pages:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.

Some editors here mentioned a really good idea, to add one sentence which encourages editors to create a userfied article first.

Userfication works like this, instead of making: ham sandwhich band a new editor would make user:ikip/ham sandwhich band.

I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how this can be worded. And do you support this idea? Ikip (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I love the idea; I think it's a great way to channel newbie enthusiasm into a place that won't get either overwritten, or jumped on too fast. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to make a this a proposal at the village pump—indeed, I still am—but I'm still trying to think through some issues. My main concern is that we don't want editors to waste effort building new articles in user space which then get promptly deleted when they are moved to article space. Drafting in user space doesn't help if the new article's subject matter is already covered in an existing article, or if the subject genuinely isn't notable enough. Won't we need some sort of support system (e.g. my outline below) on top of the basic idea? Feedback would be very helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New article support

In a nutshell: help inexperienced editors to develop new articles with acceptable quality and notability, by (a) creating articles in user space by default, where they can be polished without time pressure, and (b) giving advice and support tailored to avoid the main causes of article failure. Possible elements include:

• General injunction (with explanation) not to create pages about yourself, your company, your friends or your band, pages that advertise, personal essays etc.
• Advice on searching to see whether the subject is already covered, and help on creating a redirect if appropriate.
• Easy access to notability advice for this category of subject matter: navigating the whole of GNG and SNG is a bit overwhelming for an inexperienced editor.
• Ditto for the basics of reliable sources and how to use them without duplicating copyright material.
• Hints, like "find your first two references before you start writing", "copy the structure of a similar article" (maybe that could be automated for some popular categories?), etc.

Technical features might include:

• Easy way(s) for editors to find their draft articles, e.g. "My drafts" tab or link.
• Drafts in user space being tagged {{NOINDEX}} automatically.
• Technique for telling new page patrollers and other potentially helpful editors whether to examine user space drafts.
• Possible need for cleaning up abandoned drafts by inactive user accounts.

As you can see, this is going in the direction of a guided workflow ("wizard")—going beyond normal wikipedia editing. It might work best if it was category-specific, e.g. there'd be one version for films, others for bands, albums, performers, MMORPG clans, etc. Each wizard would contain embedded best practice for structure, subject-specific notability, categories, advice on known reliable/unreliable sources, and a pre-flight checklist before moving the page into article space. Right now, I'm a little lost trying to work out how much of the support system is essential and how much is feature creep. The question is whether the editors we are trying to attract and retain (i.e. reasonably well-educated good faith contributors) actually need this level of support. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, it's very-late/very-early for me right now. We've tried to address some of this at WP:YFA. There's also a nascent "create article" script but I can't find it right now. And I just recently posted to VPT and got some good details on how to get a name and create a uspace subpage. I'll check it more tomorrow. Warning though - that's a whole lot of technical details which are difficult enough as they are. Combine that with the newer users' tendency to not read everything, it will always be a problem. People are generally goal-oriented (as opposed to rule-oriented), if your flow doesn't suit them, they will surge over the banks. Franamax (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another passing comment, and supplementary qquestion - as many, many new articles by new users are copyright violations or attack pages, encouraging new users to create articles in userspace would therefore mean there would be more copyvios and attacks in userspace. Would this not create patrol problems? Currently when monitoring recent changes I tend to ignore userspace. pablo_hablo. 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am really glad there is positive feedback about this idea, since 76.5% of articles put up for deletion were created by editors who had 350 contributions or less, this seems like a problem.

I moved the discussion to refactored out. which is the talk page for the text every editor sees above a brand new article. I encourage everyone here to lend support to this proposal. Ikip (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that most deletions (or deletion debates) are about articles from relatively new editors is supposed to be a problem. It would be really amazing if most deletions were about articles from experienced editors, since these probably know better the do's and don'ts. I have no problems obviously with trying to help new editors write better articles (and find more suitable subjects), but the repeated suggestion that the fact that most deletions are for articles by newbies is somehow a problem is bizarre. Fram (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really there are three strands here:

• The notice that encourages contributors to create new articles in user space.
• The policies for draft articles in user space, e.g. do they get patrolled, are they indexed by search engines, is copyvio a concern, etc?
• Technology to help get articles right, e.g. breaking WP:YFA into bite-sized chunks like a wizard/checklist.

Ikip is re-starting the first strand on (struck) Where should we discuss the other two? - Pointillist (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would bring up policies for draft articles in user space in WP:VPP, asking where to ask.

The WP:Your First Article question can be asked on the talk page, and also on WP:VPT. Ikip (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup: The new article wizard is at (who woulda thunk? :) WP:Article wizard. User:Mr.Z-man created it and from the looks of it, it hasn't been worked on for a long time. The (long) discussion leading up to the creation of WP:YFA can be found here and in the following section. A section at VP (technical) discusses how to create a user sub-page. I certainly would like to see a process where new users had an easy way to create their own subpage rather than crash onto the rock of deletionism. However noindexing, copyvios and content proliferation are all serious concerns. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like copyvio in user space might be the first major hurdle. What's the right place to discuss that? - Pointillist (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see this getting some attention as I had given Pointilist a brilliant idea barnstar when this concept came up in a discussion on another matter.

1. First let's see if there is some way to have it only pop up for new user accounts and/or accounts with a small number of initial edits, with an option that it can be bypassed in those cases where the account is one belonging to an established editor who has opened a new account.
2. It should be then obviously written in a very simple manner so as to not confuse newcomers, unlike most of guideline and policy. We all know how confusing it can be for even seasoned editors.
3. The warnings about copyvio should be repeated politely several times, as well as stressing the importance of decent sources... with a simple explanation that blogs and personal websites are not suitable except in vey specialized cases.
4. It could include a link to members of welcoming committee or ARS and include a very encouraging note to seek input and advice before sending to mainspace. with our respects and apologies... We're here to help.
5. And a very pointed warning that sending something to mainspace before it is ready will likely result in deletion...

We're a volunteer organization, and I do not think there will be a lack of editors willing to offer advice. Count me among the names heading that list! Schmidt, 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean to sit on that nice barnstar for ever (!), and I 100% agree that this should be encouraging and very simple to use (that's why I tend towards category-specific wizards). However, I'd like our proposal to be bullet-proof before we send it into battle, and it looks like copyvio is a big issue for some people.

Given that one of the main advantages of userfication is that articles get enough time to discard their early problems, I'd like to avoid policing for copyvio in user space. IMO where a user space page is marked {{NOINDEX}} with some sort of {{Construction}} notice, a reasonable amount of copyright material should be permitted under the usual academic terms "for private research and comment". The contributor would then have time to rework the concepts into non-copyvio form (I don't know whether CorenBot would get involved at this stage). What do you think? Where should this aspect get discussed further? - Pointillist (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It WAS a brilliant idea. And is copyvio in userspace/construction already being patrolled? WIki encourages the use of userpace to work out just such problems. All we need let new editors understand that the waters are deeper than they think and the should not wade in without their floaties. If an established editor messes up... well, he/she should know better. But as there are already processes in place to assist newcomers, all we need do is make it less confusing and more (new)user friendly. Schmidt, 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I refactored out the link to the other page, and removed my proposal on the other page. I don't think we are ready yet to present this to the larger community. Ikip (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I would tend to disagree on the "private research" bit for copyvios. For one thing, private can be much more easily done on your own computer, for another because mirror sites won't necessarily respect the noindex tag in the same way search engines do. Mostly because the end result will likely be copyvios sitting forever in uspace and because we just plain have to eliminate copyvio. This was recently discussed at WT:NPP (here) and the best suggestion for copyvio seemed to be immediate blanking of the copyvio part with an appropriate message. The text would still be available in history but not shown in public display. As far as finding copyvios, Coren would be able to confirm whether CSB scans uspace and how it responds. Putting the big black copyvio notice onto uspace pages would probably not be too friendly, but maybe Coren could work out a way to blank the text?

For wider discussion on the issue, I'd suggest WT:C and WT:NPP.

As far as who sees the wizard, one solution I could think of is to have it as a gadget in Preferences. Newly registered users would have it enabled by default and it would stay on until they figured out how to turn things off in their preferences - and by then they've probably gained some clue, right? The MediaWiki software would need to check the pref and instead of going to the URL with "&edit&redlink=1" it would use "&edit&redlink=2", which would invoke the wizard. This is something a dev would have to do of course, perhaps Werdna would be interested. Franamax (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new addition to new articles

Pointillist had a good idea for the userfication noticfication, which I will move here.

1 to 3 is the original, which everyone sees when they create a new article.

4 is the new section:

The biggest priority is to make the new userefication section as short and concise as possible.

The beauty of this new sentence is: ], which allows a user to simply click the link to start a new userfied page. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, have you tested this with a blank page? I'm not sure REVISIONUSER will be magical when no revision has yet been made. I switched it over to Special:MyPage for now, 'til you can confirm it works. Franamax (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: ] good idea, I didn't know that was possible, the only problem with ] is it creates an extra step, the editor has to then press "create this page". Ikip (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It works. Try any page, like this one, djaklshgkjshaj then put in {{REVISIONUSER}} It also works for previously deleted articles, like Obama effect. Remember to only click show preview. Ikip (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MyPage could maybe be made to work by adding &edit&redlink=xx&preload=yy. xx would be 1 for now, 2 when the wizard gets going. yy would be for use when userfying an existing article and for new articles would preload a preamble including noindex and the underconstruction template.

Your way of using a magicword is simpler though, if it will work in the editnotice. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, wonderful, you are quite a genius. Anyway to tighten and shorten the text even more? Ikip (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Careful... the over-worked and quite dedicated Franamax does not recieve as much praise as he rightly deserves for his tireless efforts to improve wikipedia... else he'd be constantly running out to buy larger sized hats... and that would get expensive... (grin) Schmidt, 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, MQS you have burst my bubble. I truly took that as a compliment - now I see how it could be interpreted differently. lol. :) Perhaps the fact that I have linked several other places where this has been discussed has caused some resentment? Or someone new showing up casting ideas among the regulars? Dunno. Anyway, topic of longstanding interest to me, I only came back here to consider the best text - but we do need the right technical backing so new editors have a "short path" to what they want to accomplish. Franamax (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Has this proposal died or just stalled? Or has it progressed somewhere without a link to it here?

In any case I'd suggest adjusting the original points to introduce the idea like this:

Mark Hurd (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is no bad idea to encourage users to work up articles in userspace until they are ready to be pushed out of the nest. However … A lot of articles that are rightfully speedy-deleted are unsourced/negative BLPs or copyright violations. A lot of these are created by new or inexperienced users. Such pages would, I understand, still be eligible for deletion even in userspace, therefore userspace would have to be patrolled more rigorously - many recent changes/new pages patrollers currently ignore, or pay less attention to, userspace. pablo_hablo. 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some changes I made, incorporating many of Mark's sections. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So is this going somewhere as a proposed change? -- Banjeboi 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that text, but it's not fair to imply that you can get your new article into shape in user space without saying something about potential libel and copyvio issues. As Franamax said in NPP Cautious approach "some editors may use the technique of copy-pasting in a copyvio to start an article, then progressively rewrite the whole thing into an original presentation." I'd hoped NOINDEX would help, but that didn't fly, so how about adding a fifth bullet something like this (below)? - Pointillist (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If this was said concisely perhaps combine the two like:

• You can also draft a new article here: Special:MyPage/Article Rescue Squadron. You still must avoid libellous claims and infringing on copyright material. You can work on the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help on it, and then move it onto the "live" Misplaced Pages once it is ready to go.

Does this help? -- Banjeboi 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The current template has no such warning for regular pages, so I don't see why this one should. The idea was to make this as short as possible. Each one of the existing lines is short. Ikip (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way, if it's not needed just drop the sentence. Can it be launched as a proposal whever it's to happen? -- Banjeboi 10:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sentence was to address Franamax's concern about copyvio—it isn't essential on day one (I was just thinking it might smooth the path for the proposal). Once the feature is implemented we'll soon see how well it is working: if copyvio/libel in user sandboxes turns out to be a significant problem, then we can adjust the wording. - Pointillist (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest then propsing without the copyvio sentence but mentioning it as a possible addition. Can this go forward now? -- Banjeboi 18:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD Notification bot "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated"

01:11, 27 November 2006: Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_8#AfD_alert_bot, created Jayden54Bot

Our suggestion (short): Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_14#AfD_notification_bot, Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_21#Afd_notification

09:26, 29 September 2007:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_43#Notification_as_part_of_deletion_process

Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Other bots

User:Jayden54/WPDead Source.js

• 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, 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)

• Fram, how can you call these "errors": it is the status quo. I appreciate many of your comments here. But, Fram, I think you would be more comfortable at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion. If you decide to 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 nauseum 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)

Uncle G, your post gave me an idea. Maybe we should find out what the ARS members think about this discussion? Is it acceptable for this project to behave like the hundreds and hundreds of other wikiprojects? 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Same tired argument, ignoring the reality of, oh, nearly every single wikiproject. Ikip (talk) 15:12, 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 Man in Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
              Two 3rrs in the past couple of days on this page.
              Removal of ARS tags from articles,
              deletion of templates,
              arguing against almost all initatives the ARS takes,
              a bad block over posting notices on talk pages, which is perfectly okay. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
              • And I'm a sock of Plautus Satire. But you didn't answer my question. Who is qualified to comment? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:27, 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)
    • In at least the fiction AfDs, I have seen those on the delete side outright say "I don't really know anything about this", "I would never argue to keep," and "I'm not interested in seeing if sources exist", etc. (actual quotes the likes of which I have seen multiple times now, but this is not the place to discuss specific editors), ergo, comments by non-experts. There are clearly some who indeed do hover around AfDs with no interest in improving articles at all. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:38, 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)
      • I think part of Ikip's concern is that some making these claims are themselves not engaging in article rescue either, so... Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Umm, hmmm. First off let's not quibble on who is or isn't an article rescuer, that seems unproductive. I have done quite a lot but not on that article. And XfD doesn't require an editor make edits to an item to qualify on offering an opinion. It would be nice but that's not a rule. I'm also unconvinced it's helpful to determine blame for who turned this page into a battleground. Frankly we've have had many insightful threads which have impacted this project and Misplaced Pages positively. What remains, IMHO, is to offer constructive suggestions and actionable items to what holds promise. Everyone, as always, is ultimately responsible for what they post. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjobi, I think you should recognize that recent conduct by members has caused a reaction. I'm suggesting you select a coordinator from the existing membership to prevent this happening in future. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll meet you on your talkpage to suss out some forward motion, this talkpage is a bit special at the moment. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Uncle G on this, watching this issue from the sidelines. ARS is a well-intended project, but that word "rescue" means an active participation in trying rescue articles that would otherwise be deleted through AFD. That doesn't mean just going to the AFD discussion and stating "keep"; that should only be done if the editor in question has made some attempting, even if just dropping a hyperlinked source into the article in question to help keep it. Thus, in terms of canvassing, posting requests here to get editors to help add sources or whatever else is necessary to an article up for rescue is appropriate (that's in the project's scope), but not for the purposes of adding !votes to an AFD without additional action. In contrary, the "canvasing" that listed above to specific Wikiprojects is appropriate because its implied that the project contains expert editors on the subject and thus can help guide the discussion particularly in light of that project's guidelines. That works both ways for keeps and deletes. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When an article's compliance with policy arguably falls below the threshold for inclusion, then ARS members ought to improve it before voting. When an article's been improved so that its now clearly worthy of staying, having a say on the AfD is sometimes all thats required.

Uncle G, there has been an active effort at disruption and harrassment on this page, most recently spearheaded by A Man In Black. It is really easy to come here and post a contuation of your "we are all wikipedians" unifying theme, (I am surprised you didn't bring up the idealistic garden analogy again) which completely carpets over the realities of different view points, and the harrassment that this project endured. I would post all the edit diffs and tactics, particuarly be A Man In Black, but that wouldn't change your mind one bit, would it?

My concern of who is or is not a member is secondary. Again, it is really tiring to hear what this project is and is not about by editors whose edit hisitories are clearly contradictory to this articles mission and editors who attempt to subvert everything ARS attempts to do (which all other wikiprojects actively do). You even went so far as saying there is a "pervertion" here. I think what is "perverse" and troubling ironic, is that the co-architect of many of the notabilty guidelines, which is the number one reason given for most of the deletions, is advising ARS on how ARS should or should not act.

Uncle G, Masem, and PhilKnight, don't address my original statment, how all of the other wikiprojects have not had to endure the fierce scrutiny that ARS has, for actions that are exactly the same.

150+ times wikiprojects have mentioned DRVs. 20+ examples are above, and yet there is a firestorm when one DRV is posted here. Unfortunately, that is the history of the project, everything that ARS members attempt to do, there is a firestorm of criticism, mostly from editors whose edit history tends to be contrary to the fundamental ideals of the project. That is why I am inviting editors to go to Misplaced Pages:Deletion sorting, which has the AFD tags, etc.

But the beahvior hisotry of many of these editors, particularly AMIB, is an incredibly confrontational one, so I know this will be ignored. Ikip (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points about the other wikiprojects ikip, we dont seem to have a level playing field here! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is being confrontational in this section. They are only saying "here is a problem which has been identified, the ARS can solve it themselves and immediately remove the source of most of the criticism of the project." Of course those editors involved are free to carry on spamming AfD with spurious Keep votes, but at least no-one will be able to turn round and say that they're doing it under the banner of the ARS. This ARS editor would be a good place to start - 11 AfD Keep votes in the last few weeks, and every single one either just "Keep", "Strong Keep", or "Keep per (other editor)". If I was closing AfD I'd discount every single one of those, so what's the point? The focus should be on improving articles, not deletion votes. In fact, in a perfect world, the only comment that an ARS member should ever have to add to a deletion discussion is "Look, I've improved this article so that it now meets our policies, what does everyone think of it now?". Black Kite 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Feyd. it is amazing how editors who you would think are strongly opposed to the project, have come here in droves and are now so concerned about ARS. The irony. Ikip (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ikip. Black kite, the point is that the good work others have done in improving an article will likely be wasted if the consensus at an Afd still seems to be for deletion. And the editor you've picked out has made a number of good edits to several of the articles being edited. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at an AfD rarely lies with deletion if the article has been improved to an appropriate level. Furthermore, consensus does not change by people spamming "keep" on AfDs. It is at best pointless and at work extremely disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, I am notifying the editor that he is mentioned here. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would hope by that logic you would discount all the delete WP:PERNOM as well by those who aren't interested in improving the articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases I'd similarly discount PERNOM as well, just as I would any !vote that was just "Delete". Black Kite 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussing what other projects do or don't do seems like a red herring to me. There are two points that have been made above that sum up ARS's role and how it is most effective.

The only comment that an ARS member should ever have to add to a deletion discussion is "Look, I've improved this article so that it now meets our policies, what does everyone think of it now?". Black Kite 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not change by people spamming "keep" on AfDs. It is at best pointless and at work extremely disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When I see people editing in the main space I respect their contributions and discussion points. But when I see that most contributions are in wikipedia space or on talk pages arguing and arguing then its hard to take such editors seriously. This may not be fair but it is reality. I suspect it is also why ARS is in the spotlight again and again. David D. (Talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is David D.'s first edit on the project today, along with Masem, and PhilKnight. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Or is it? David D. (Talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

full disclosure: I've simply been watching (ARS has been on my watchlist for at least a year) - I'm unaware if anyone canvassed. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well this is why i'm here. And a recent interest in the goals of the project. David D. (Talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And, please don't forget to mention, the recent ANI. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, i appreciate that you scored out the comment above. Second, "spotlight" was a metaphor for ANI, "recent interest" was a nod to ANI too and if that was too cryptic for you, if you look at the link I gave you'll see I am quite explicit. David D. (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, again that is generally disparaging towards hundreds of editors. There may be good reasons for a continual spotlight but they also may indicate an over-vigilance. I do appreaciate you weeding through this to find some relevant posts as that can help lead language for why !empty votes are ... empty. Personally I have 3,000+ items, exncluding talkpages, on my watchlist and I've never been caught up. Sometimes I'm inspired to do major work, other times I look to see if sourcing is available etc. and I post my results. It may make sense to actually employ a few bots to suss out which folks are making hollow votes - in any direction and give them a friendly note that they are seemingly wasting their energy and possibly doing more harm than good. If done neutrally I would support this effort and have no problem using formerly rescue-tagged AFDs toward that effort. -- Banjeboi 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Red herring: "Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue."

Um, the original issue is allegations of canvassing.

Again, several editors whose edit history is contradictory to the very ideals of this project, are dictating what ARS should be.

I am also troubled at how suddenly so many editors who have been so critical of this project, ironically come here and preach against canvassing. There are even 3 editors whose views match those critical of the project, who suddenly appeared, and edited for the first time today. These WP:DUCK canvas arguments rarely go anywhere. I apologize to Phil, Masem and David D.

ARS is no different than the other wikiprojects, except our scope is bigger and we have been harrassed more.

I applaud A Nobody for posting articles with problems below, and I encourage all editors to post any problems they have, as hundreds of other wikiprojects do. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not critical of the project, far from it. That you think that says more about you than me. David D. (Talk)

I encourage AMIB and Fram and others who have some doubts about the intent of the project to continue posting here. All WP projects are open. When i see a project where i have by doubts, I simply join it and hope to possibly influence and if not keep watch. I've helped turn around some deletion-oriented projects, and also some projects trying too hard to keep indefensible articles. I also encourage anyone voting blindingly to stop doing so. Whatever one wants to do, it is much more effective to give a reason in one's own words. DGG (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any doubts about the intent of the project, or its good work. I have doubts about misuse of its tools, mostly well-meaning but sometimes not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it, fundamentally, a GOOD thing or a bad thing when this happens:

1. Someone sees an article at AfD, and tags it for rescue.

2. Someone (maybe someone else, maybe the same someone) makes some improvements to the article.

3. Several ARS members, going through the category, show up and !vote "keep per improvements"

Good, bad, or depends? Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, because 1) regarding point 2 above, it means the article is improved and 2) regarding point 3 above, it means editors are shown appreciation for their efforts, which is important per Misplaced Pages:Editors matter. Best, --A Nobody 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends entirely on the improvements, and the state of the article thereafter, innit? Skomorokh 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Innit indeed. Some articles at Afd can be improved in ways that still do not justify their inclusion, no matter how many !keep votes they subsequently garner. pablo_hablo. 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Slightly different take on the question:

1. Someone sees an article at AfD, and tags it for rescue.

2. Someone (maybe someone else, maybe the same someone) does a search for sources, finds some, and posts them in the AfD but does not add them to the article.

3. Several ARS members, going through the category, show up and !vote "keep per references found"

Good, bad, or depends? :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm an extreme eventualist, but to me there's not too much difference between the questions: it depends on whether or not the rescuer has shown that the topic can satisfy the criteria for inclusion, i.e. if the sources satisfy WP:GNG. Skomorokh 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my take as well, but I suspect other editors may differ, which is why I posed it. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood why people post sources in an Afd instead of adding them to the article. Mention that you have edited the article, yes, but stick the sources where they belong. pablo_hablo. 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do it because sources don't need to be in the article to affect the AfD, they just need to be shown to exist, and often because I have time to post a few searches (which should have been done by the nom per WP:BEFORE), but not the time to integrate and cite them. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point when time is tight (either for you or the Afd). But given that you have to evaluate the sources and check that they support the text etc, surely sticking them in as a standard <ref>newsourcehere</ref> would be better than including them in a post on a discussion page? You can always reformat the cite if and when the article survives. pablo_hablo. 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

#3 is a bad thing full stop. #3 is the whole problem here. #3 is historically accompanied with additional fallout not limited to badgering, persistent personal attacks, and cross-wiki retribution (including the perennial presence of the group-vote at RfA, which unlike AfD is largely based on vote-counting). Were #3 to stop, nobody would have any problem with this project whatsoever. This has been made abundantly clear almost every time the problem with ARS is brought up. Certain individuals have made a career out of obfuscating this by implying that #3 is somehow inseparable from #1 and #2. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not clear which 1.2.3. scenario you're referring to: the first (article improved), the second (AfD updated), or both (i.e. any vote claiming the article's been improved). Surely you can't be saying that improving an article while it's in AfD is wrong? Have I missed the point here? Pointillist (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what Thumperward is suggesting is that editors patrolling the use of the {{rescue}} tag should stick to improving articles tagged as needing rescue and avoid the associated deletion discussions. Skomorokh 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

They should do both, i.e. improve the articles and discuss the improvements. I would rather hear from those actually willing to look for sources and add them if possible then those who have no interest at all, which is unfortuantely what we frequently run into. They need to comment as well, because a good deal of editors never return to the discussions and so we can have an improved article deleted if it was improved half way through a discussion and no one adequately acknowledges the improvements. Plus, it is necessary to counterbalance some of the copy and paste "delete per noms" we get. Best, --A Nobody 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It should never be "necessary to counterbalance" opposing copy-pastes by copy-pasting. This behaviour is precisely what originally got you into trouble. Consensus is not a head count. Fighting fire with fire harms the whole project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't. We shouldn't have indiscriminate copy and paste "per noms". If anything, it should be required that those who comment in AfDs must demonstrate evidence of having looked for sources and attempted to improve the article prior to commenting. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is the feedback I was suspecting it might show up. I think it highlights an important cultural/expectation disconnect. If ARS is a place where the first ARS member to see a particular tag'ed article tends to show up and add sources, AND where other editors who show up at a place where sources have been recently added tend to !vote "keep per (sources|improvements)" then it has both a first and second order effect. It's not that ARS is a place to canvass, made up of rabid inclusionists, or anything of the sort. What really happens is that the efforts of one ARS member expand geometrically as the rest of the ARS'ers who swing by note the improvements and !vote accordinlgy. ARS tends to be an improvement multiplier, because it's much less likely for anyone to pile on when an ARS'er posts a "delete-did extensive searches, nothing found" comment. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that part 3 is entirely unneeded. Once the deletionist bogeyman strawman is eliminated, it becomes apparent that in the week-long process by which an AfD is run that if the article is improved significantly in that time then it will be kept whether there are any "keep per improvement" comments from ARS or not. Ideally, ARS should be so divorced from AfD that its members are actively discouraged from participating in AfDs in that their work should be to improve the articles to the point where others judge them to have qualified for inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is we typically have in AfDs accounts that are not exactly qualified to judge, i.e. they come in with an inherent bias wanting to delete regardless of improvement or lacking real knowledge of the subject anyway. Best, --A Nobody 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I first encountered you when, after several months of discussion on WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable. You systemically disrupted those AfDs to the effect that they took several times longer than necessary, despite having zero prior contact with the subject matter, mostly with copy-paste keeps due to your ideological bent. I'm trying to have a grown-up argument as to the future direction of ARS. I would ask that you refrain from any further implication as regarding the shade of the kettle. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the 40 K articles were nominated by someone who was initially named "KillerOfCruft" of all things and who is now blocked. Hardly, an unbiased expert. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

An expert nonetheless, given my interactions with him. As was pointed out when you copy-pasted your opposal to those noms based on the identity of the editor in question, the nominations themselves were not in bad faith. Your opposes were most certainly less well founded. You'd be wise not to continue this line of reasoning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In those discussions, I made many different arguments and posts and given the motivations of the now blocked account, it was pretty clear that that they were disruptive nominations, which is why after all they were not unanimous deletes by any stretch of the imagination. Best, --A Nobody 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So turn it round the other way. I can improve an article that's going to be deleted (e.g. Bed management) and ARS members can !vote keep because I'm not a member of ARS and the article never had a rescue tag. Right now, if I improve an article after ARS has tagged it, my contribution is seen as less valuable, and if a self-confessed ARS member improves an article, that would be basically the kiss of death, right? So the ARS should restrict itself to being an administrative function with two or three members who list articles in need of urgent attention and maybe lead some big strategic arguments, but actual improvements and AfD comments should be made by people who don't identify themselves as ARS members and won't vote in a caucus at RfAs. That could work. Is it what Thumperward wants? Pointillist (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by the "kiss of death" comment. For the rest, if an article has already been improved to the point where the hypothetical average editor would deem it worth keeping then there is nothing for ARS to do.

Another possible permutation of your comment (bear in mind that I really don't know what you're getting at) is that in theory the current partisan inclusionists whose participation in ARS is what brings the heat on it could not join ARS and continue to participate in AfDs freely. However, this was basically the status quo prior to said editors having latched onto ARS in the first place. Should this happen then great - ARS would be a non-partisan place for editors to improve articles, while you'd have various non-affiliated editors hassling people at AfD. This moves the heat back off of ARS. I'd be very happy for that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the dimension I had in mind: I was thinking that "partisan" !votes could be the kiss of death at an AfD, but ARS could remain partisan if the actual article improvers weren't members, and I think you are saying that ARS would work better if partisan editors weren't affiliated with it. So basically we agree, though we might need to firm up a few details about horses and stable doors.... Pointillist (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm now convinced that the best way to make the distinction clear is for ARS to divorce itself entirely from actual deletion discussions, dedicating itself entirely to the process of article improvement. That would solve the problem above, as it would drive the serial keepers out of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Three words: "Not gonna happen" If I'm improving an article, I'm going to say as much in the AfD. If I see an article that's been improved by one of my peers, I'm going to evaluate its current state and documented sourcing and !vote appropriately. Take a gander at what I did to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Yellow_Star_(Book) (diffs). I'm not giving up that kind of accomplishment, where the AfD nominator congratulates me on the work I've done. I look at your objections to how things are executed and find they're really insignificant and petty compared to saving something like that. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and it turns out the parts I seem to be best at are finding stuff in the trash and fixing it, and all the objections in the world can't tarnish the accomplishments of the ARS members who follow the same path. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What has your contribution to the AfD done to save the article? Even if you hadn't commented on the AfD others would have noticed your rescue work and opined to keep. Is that AfD indicative of the kind of problematic AfD participation which draws all the heat on ARS? Absolutely not. So why insist that the two are inextricably linked? Fixing ARS means divorcing the good stuff (article rescue) from the bad stuff (attempted vote-stacking, persecution of opponents, eternal projectspace drama). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The first thing it did is gave notice: 1) I believe in it, 2) I've found something so far, and 3) I'm working on it. If you believe that a bunch of keep !votes would have magically materialized without my resetting the tone of the AfD, you have a very different view of AfD than I do. I've made improvements to an article late in the AfD process, only to see them ignored or discounted by closing admins who counted noses. Votestacking can be ignored if it's inappropriate, and harassment should be punished on an individual basis. Project drama... seems to me an invention of those who don't like the ARS. None are a compelling reason to hinder the call to improve articles facing deletion in any way. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only say that I categorically disagree that (a) it is truly necessary to have rescuing editors post "keep per my improvements" comments on AfDs to make others take notice; (b) the solution to the long-term problem of disruptive projectspace contributions is to either ignore it or to punish individuals (especially because the issue is not so much individual contributions, but the shepherding of users to act in the certain way en masse); and (c) that the long-term harrassment and drama is "an invention of those who don't like the ARS". I don't think we're likely to see any common ground on those issues, but I've said my piece. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Above you comment on a "deletionist bogeyman strawman" and yet here talk of "partisan inclusionists", a strawman in its own right. The best outcome is that all of us focus on improving articles. These accusations have no basis in a constructive discussion. Best, --A Nobody 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The term "partisan inclusionist" is being used above as a placeholder for any number of existing editors who act like this already; it is not an artificial construction in the way that the deletionist bogeyman (to wit: an editor who derives joy from deleting good articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia) is frequently used around here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Thumperard, you worked closely with an editor called "KillerofCruft"? WP:CRUFT: "cruft, is a pejorative, which can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." How can you reconcile your claim of wanting to help Article Rescue Squadron on the one hand, and working closely with an editor who, by his very name had a purpose of killing articles?

More worryingly, you are defending an indefinetly banned user? Ikip (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cruft is by definition a bad thing; the various attempted MfDs to eliminate the word from WP failed because outwith a core group of inclusionists it's not held to be a dirty word. Fredrick Day (for it is he) was indef blocked for a past history of disruptive editing (which I've never condoned) and subsequent socking (which I publicly tried very hard to dissuade him from). He was not blocked for proposing various AfDs in good faith, and those AfDs were imminent anyway (I did a few myself), so this attempt at guilt by association is rather weak. It's curious that you would continually refer to Fredrick Day by the short-lived "killerofcruft" moniker when you yourself changed your name from user:Inclusionist from what I can surmise is precisely the same attempt not to have your edits tainted by your user name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No ones “tainted” by being labelled an inclusionist! It’s a preference that indicates a generous nature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens, yes voting keep is generally a good thing once the articles been sufficiently improved . In an ideal world editors would amend their delete votes to keep after the improvement, but we don’t live in an ideal world, IME of AfD less than one in four change their vote post improvement. Without members of the ARS voting for keep, the consensus would often still appear to be for deletion, articles would be lost, those who’d improved them might be demoralised, and there would be a huge net to the encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that consensus has nothing whatsoever to do with head-counting, and that AfD is not a vote? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive been advised of the relevant guideline. The reality is there seems a strong correlation between the balance of opinion expressed, as per head count, and the decision of the closing admin. There are exceptions , but usually only when theres an obvious good reason. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any value in a headcount disappears completely when campaigning for votes is going on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, how to reconcile your "campaigning" complaint with this:

"WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable.""

Sounds like the definition of "campaigning" to me. I haven't had time to go through your WP:VG contributions, but I am willing to bet that you have talked at length about deleting articles, or as you call it "campaigning" and "canvassing". I have already seen examples of other editors here bringing up and discussing AfDs actively in their projects. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Campaigning is calling for the support of like-minded editors to back you up. Rallying supporters subverts the ability to count heads in a close. (And, you know, gogo Gadget baseless sweeping accusations.) And weren't you disengaging from me not 12 hours ago? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you are talking about User_talk:Benjiboi#3RR? -- slow down AMIB, you have so many edit wars going on, you can't keep the participants straight :) Ikip (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I was talking about the disruptive effect that campaigning has on deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, an AfD I put up recently was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Witches Hammer. Basically, the article was a mess and I did some looking around and could only find online fansites that talked about the film, so I nominated. Michael Schmidt did some great work cleaning it up, but I still wasn't sure that it was actually notable, because the sources were still only these fansites. I expressed this on the page, but a few other contributors had voted keep, and the admin closed it as keep. Fair enough, I thought. However, after reading through this discussion, I realise that all the Keep votes bar one were from ARS members. What are my thoughts on this? To be honest, it makes me feel a bit uneasy. I certainly think that when voting keep, it should be based on policy, not a comment like "Keep as now improved". Just because an article has been improved does not make it notable. Likewise people sticking an article on AfD should be checking to see whether there are sources to establish notability, whether or not the article is in a bit of a state. Quantpole (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this project is doing everything that every other wikiproject does, except that ARS editors are harassed for doing it. To get back to the original discussion:

Thumperward wrote above:

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...

No bar to entry, anyone can join

RE: "because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter"

The key word here is "theoretically". I just helped create wikiproject South Park, and wikiproject bilateral relations, I assure you I am an expert in neither. I never join or create wikiprojects first and foremost because I have knowledge of the subject, it is because I have an interest in the subject. The two are not necessarily synonymous. I helped create bilateral relations, and I have no knowledge of this subject. Can wikiproject bilateral relations and wikiproject South Park now post DRV and delete discussions, as all other hundreds projects do?

Thumperward, your argument would be more convincing if there was some bar to joining and creating these organizations, but wikiprojects are open to everyone, that means anyone can join, and there is no bar to joining.

We can do it, and hundreds of other projects can do it, but you can't

I find it ironic that you openly admit that you and your fellow 18 Warhammer wikiproject editors actively put articles up for deletion on your project, and yet you feel that ARS cannot post those exact same AFDs here. So Thumperward has his own "canvassing" group, of 18 members, which work together to delete articles, but ARS, with 244 members, cannot do the exact same thing.

Simpsons "experts"

RE: "WP:40K, a bunch of AfDs were raised for subjects that the Project (full of subject experts like me) had deemed unsuitable."

Are you telling me that there are South Park and Simpsons experts? Is there even such a thing as a "Simpsons" expert? You mention above you are an expert on Warhammer, how can Simpsons and South Park wikiproject editors become experts like you?

I have seen many of these discussions on wikiprojects, I wouldn't call most of these editors "subject experts" by any leap of the imagination, these are hobbyist, who share a common interest. I think you are looking for the word "hobbyist". Just like the editors here. ARS has over 200 members, with varying backgrounds and views. We might even have had an "Warhammer expert" here, who has attempted to fix an article which you tried to delete.

Is this acurate?:

So to reiterate my point. ARS is no different from WP:40K, except our scope is larger and we are harassed by editors, many who actively edit in wikiprojects that advertise AfDs, advertise DRVs, and editor notification, but who feel ARS should not do the same.

ARS can and will do all the things that these hundreds of wikiprojects already do. Ikip (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone whose intentions are primarily to !vote (either way) on AfDs does now just the same as from before this project: they hang around AfD. This project is intended to counter the problem imposed by the short finite length of AfDs--the 5 or 7 day deadline for improving articles. This can only be countered by focusing effort of doing that. I note the response of the people originally !voting for deletion when that happens:the ones in good faith are glad to see the articles improved, and change their !vote. The others typically deny the existence of any improvements using various technical objections to the sources provided, and thus demonstrate their lack of interest in improving the encyclopedia in any positive sense. If there is a net increase in keeps it is presumably due to this. There's of course another possibility-- thee may be among the thousands of Misplaced Pages editors who aren't active in these process a very considerable number who have broad views on article inclusion, possibly a much higher number than feel the opposite. If an increased number of ordinary editors pay attention to these issues, the actual consensus may be rather different from what some people assume it is. DGG (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think there's a legitimate problem when a project has a predetermined point of view. Unfortunately, there was a recent recruiting drive for ARS, where users were selectively notified based on their use of certain userboxes and user categories that favor inclusion. ARS used to be a nonideological group dedicated to article improvement. Now, because of this recent recruiting drive, there is a systemic bias among ARS that favors inclusion. If ARS members are not being linked to discussions that are about inclusion, that's fine: so if they're actually improving articles, they're okay. But when they're called upon to participate in policy discussions that are directly related to inclusion, or discussions are "include versus delete", we're dealing with a legitimate systemic problem. We're talking about votestacking: selectively notifying a group of editors because you feel they have a predetermined point of view.
• My question to you is if it would be okay for someone to aggressively recruit people with userboxes and user categories favorable to deletion, accumulate them at one venue/project/taskforce, and then post links to policy and AFD discussions from that venue. Randomran (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love there to be such a project. Better people should do so openly. I'll join and make some constructive comments once a day or so about where they should and should not focus their energy. They already have a tag for articles, in fact, it's the afd notification. But yes, I can see things getting sufficiently polarized that we might need some other way of deciding than the present system. The only correlate in the real world to an afd with voluntary jurors choosing what cases they want to judge, is a lynch mob mobbing. DGG (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB asked me to withdraw a word I used above, I hope he finds my replacement (in italics) preferable

... really? Not only do you think it would be 100% okay to recruit people with a particular view on inclusion to a single task force, and then post links to deletion/inclusion policy discussions and AFDs... but you'd actually love it, even encourage more of it? Randomran (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're insisting that you're not a WikiProject, and you don't act like one (normal WikiProjects post tags on talk pages, for example), but you want to take all the positive benefits of it and none of the restrictions. No, it doesn't work that way. All "you"s in the previous statement are plural and refer to the ARS as a whole. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, there is such a project: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion they have there own {{rescue}} tag, etc, they even have "deletion" in the title.

RE: "ARS used to be a nonideological group dedicated to article improvement"

this is patently absurd, and shows a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the history of this project. ARS has been harrassed long before any drive for new members happened (which, by the way, was completely within wikipedia rules, and is a regular part of all wikiprojects, there are over 269 invitation templates). The three MfD for deletion happened years ago. Look through the 30+ pages of AfDs, it is full of editors who tend to support deletion and merging condeming this project.

RE: "If ARS members called upon to participate in policy discussions that are directly related to inclusion, or discussions are "include versus delete", we're dealing with a legitimate systemic problem."

You just described every wikiproject. But for some reason, outsiders are demading that ARS be different. Two or three editors said that some of the wikiprojects tended to slant towards deletion or inclusion, where is your criticism of these groups, who actively "canvas", post AfDs, post DRVs?

Enough, lets call a spade a spade: hypocricy. There is such a pattern of hypocricy here. The same editors who actively discuss the fate of AFDs and DRVs in their little projects, with like minded editors, are condemning ARS for doing the same thing.

ARS will continue to enjoy the same priveleges of all projects. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What qualifies you to make such pronouncements? You opened this discussion, and have now announced that it's over, with the conclusions being exactly identical to the ones you made in the first post. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I maybe wrong, but I think I have a have just a little bit more credibility than NUKE AND PAVE articles, and "Cruftkiller" defender does to say what I think is best for the project. Ikip (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you have more credibility to "say what you think is best for the project". You are in fact the only one qualified to do so. pablo_hablo. 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You've said what you think is best for the project. Repeatedly and at length, with two section headers in this discussion alone devoted to what you think is best for the project. I believe we're drowning in what you think is best for the project.

Now, what qualifies you to announce that what you think is best for the project is what will happen from here on, as you just did? From what authority do you draw your conclusion that "ARS will continue to" do anything? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have much more credibility to say what ARS can and can't do. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Tell me why you have credibility, not why random other people don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, why are you involved in this wikiproject? Two 3rrs in the past couple of days here, massive edit warring even now on this and other pages, is this the behavior of an admin? Ikip (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't an answer to my question. Where's your credibility? From what authority do you make pronouncements like "ARS will continue to enjoy the same priveleges of all projects"? Ikip, you're not an article rescuer. What are you doing here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I could never give you an answer to your satification, I have had enough of the continued baiting and harrassment AMIB. This is not the behavior of an admin. Ikip (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting an answer because there isn't one. Ikip, you're a bad example and an agitator here, and shame on me and everyone for being agitated, but it's time to stop. Keep arguing at AFD, keep improving articles, keep doing whatever else you want, but stop posting on this page, as threads like this are not productive.

My hands are not clean, but you started this thread to suggest that people leave this project alone. I propose you leave this project alone, so that everyone who is here to moderate or oppose your disruption can also leave it alone. I'm increasingly starting to realize I've fallen into the trap of ascribing to Banjeboi in particular and the project in general the bad faith I have repeatedly seen exhibited by you alone (and for that I am sorry). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! I've noticed you've a good sense of humour MIB and you've outdone yourself here. As if you can waltz into a project and suggest one of its leading members departs! I can see how it might suit deletionists for us to loose ikip , but its not going to happen. Ikip, it may be an option to stay away from the page for a day or two and let them talk themselves out. No matter what they say or how vehement they are about it I doubt many squad members will let their conduct be influenced by these characters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite him inviting you here, he's not a leading member. DGG and Banjeboi and A Nobody are leading members. Ikip is coopting this project in order to have a favorable venue to recruit support for disputes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm shocked that people think it's 100% okay to recruit people based on ideology, get them to coalesce at one venue, and then link them to discussions where they can exert ideological influence. Isn't this the very definition of votestacking? But if everyone thinks this is fine, then I guess we actively *like* a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to discussion? Randomran (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not you or I, but seriously now, and I mean this not sarcastically. I truly am beginning to get the impression that some do indeed actually prefer a "battleground" atmosphere to actually helping to improve article. There's a point of not taking WP:AGF to being naive, and given what we know about human nature, not everyone can mean well. So, what is key is to avoid getting dragged into these discussions, taking the high ground, and improving articles. Best, --A Nobody 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • There's won't be a highground without accountability. If we permit one editor to selectively recruit based on inclusion philosophy, and subsequently link to numerous discussion pages, then we're going to have a lot more discussions and a lot less article improvement. Not just because they'll start doing it, but because other people with other inlucion philosophies will too. But if we say that it's unacceptable to organize an entire inclusion-philosophy -- either inclusionist or deletionist -- at a Misplaced Pages space and link to talk page discussions, then we'll spend a lot less time at those respective talk pages. If we stop it, we get back to articles. If we don't stop it, the discussions will continue, no matter how much we hate them. Randomran (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That "one editor" is code for me. Randomran, I am sorry that you worked so hard on WP:FICT which would have buried or deleted hundreds of articles that contributors made, and that I came along and posted a neutral message on a couple of hundred fiction article talk pages, which may have been part of the reason that WP:FICT failed for a third time (you can't hold me responsible for the failure of the first two, and I think three makes a trend). I am sorry that two admins said the template was okay to post before hand, and that I followed all the rules. I am sorry that sanctions were not leeved against me when an editor posted a complaint about this on ANI.

No one has ever argued that I didn't follow the rules. An admin recently had his block reversed because I allegedy:

1. "push the boundaries of WP:CANVASS",
2. "various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS",
3. "Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING...following only the letter of the rules"
4. "continues to walk the line any way he can"

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT RULES OF CANVAS CHANGE THEM. But don't punish or complain about editors who follow the rules.

Again, Randomran is here complaining about ARS following the rules, doing something that all the wikiprojects do themselves with no harrassment what-so-ever.

Ikip (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from these tension raising discussions, I don't see any evidence than anything detrimental to the project actually resulted. If you're referring to Ikip, then even for what he was blocked, the alleged canvassing, didn't seem to actually result in anyone showing up at the AfD and if he isn't doing anything any more, then it is beating a dead horse. Best, --A Nobody 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ikip, you need to calm down and assume good faith. I'm here to provide an outside opinion that's neither inclusionist or deletionis, and discuss a behavioral issue. I'm not here to be "vindictive", and I resent that you're trying to make this about inclusion philosophy when this is about behavior. DGG and ikip both think it's okay to recruit in this way, me and A Nobody don't think it's okay, but we need to get away from the usual suspects and ask independent Wikipedians if this behavior is helpful or detrimental to consensus-building. Randomran (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's permissible to recruit in this way, but I do not think it desirable. Recruitment will come naturally from seeing the work. The project should focus on the original goal (I was the 8th person to join, about 2 years ago) : rescuing a few articles at a time, choosing carefully on the basin of both importance of the article and the likelihood of success. Focussing attention on articles for their possible improvement is one of the beneficial side effects of the AfD process, and this project was meant to facilitate that part. The fact that it can improve articles will encourage others to try also. Perhaps it will even encourage those nominating articles to search first, to avoid possible embarrassment. DGG (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that if the project were to focus on its original goal we'd have all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. I'd hope that everyone would be able to drop it. But the problem is that the cat is out of the bag, with a highly discriminatory inclusionist-based recruitment drive in February, followed by a lot of links to miscellaneous discussions from this page, such as policy discussions. I'm not really sure how to stop it, and put ARS back on its original footing. Randomran (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, as I have been reminded up above, this is not the forum to talk about behavioral issues, as much as I would like too myself.

I never stated you were either inclusionist or deletionist, in fact, I don't think I have used that term once here in this discussion, practically everyone has, but I have avoided it.

I am always a little leery of those who enter a discussion saying "I am a neutral" party, I am an outside party, here to help. I have seen too many "neutral parties" willing to jump in at ANI and "help" who are incredible enamoured to one side.

In this case, we had a history together on WP:FICT so I know your stance Randomran. I have been in a lot of AFDs were editors quoted WP:FICT to get an article deleted. So I apologize for my extreme skeptisism.

Fritzpoll, regardless of his views, pulls off the "helpful outsider" much better, because his stance, at least to me, is an unknown.

Randomran, the concerned outsider, attempting to dictate what ARS should and should not do, and always, always, saying he only has the best interest of ARS in mind. How many times have I heard this in the past couple of days here? From editors, sometimes, whose entire editing career has been to delete articles. It rings hollow.

The reality, regardless of feel good we are all "wikipedians" speeches is that there is Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages sides on wikipedia, and pretty much everyone leans one way or another. Even you, Randomran, lean one way, you heavily promoted and advocated for FICT, which would have deleted and merged thousands of articles. Ikip (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the accusations of bad faith. WP:FICT wasn't my proposal and does not represent my leanings. If I pushed hard for it, it was only because I wanted to see something that would keep more articles than the current WP:GNG, which is a stricter standard than WP:FICT that is being used to delete articles every day.

Misplaced Pages works on consensus, and I find it ironic that you're attacking me for dictating when you're ignoring all other input and appointing yourself the unilateral decision maker of what ARS can and cannot do. I'm only pointing out there's a legitimate issue, and yes I have an opinion on it. But we're not going to resolve this until a neutral group of Wikipedians can decide whether this is appropriate behavior. You're 100% that this is not the time of the place. If I have a role to play, it's in pointing out that there are ways of obtaining neutral feedback, and we should work on that, so we can resolve this once and for all. One side dictating to the other is not going to work. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)