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)

Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted.

I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: User:Ikip/ref it is really easy to install. Ikip (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Template:Misplaced Pages-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to try and build one of these also in the next week. Ikip (talk) 18:56, 10 May 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)

I like your how to rescue page idea. I have started one here: Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/How to

I think the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter is the best bet. Ikip (talk) 18:58, 10 May 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)

• How many people believe we need a bot that does the following:

Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by:

1. The bot reads the AFD today page a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
2. The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (this tool already exists, also), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later.
3. Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, "don't send me any automatic messages like this again" list, removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages.

• Support Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. Dream Focus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on WP:VPT if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - couldn't hurt, although an article articles with various tags on it them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. Radiopathy •talk• 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Does not concern the ARS - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --Kizor 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an offer of resignation after the James Burns orchestra is no more... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not related to the function or goal of ARS But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, query I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? pablo_hablo. 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? Ikip (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Why not?" support Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• support No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article.
• Support - What Jclemens said. OlYeller 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  ...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. Dream Focus 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --A Nobody 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support surprised it doesn't exist yet Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at perennial proposals as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It states the answer right there: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. This is somewhat addressed by my comment - This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors.

Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces):

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=NAME&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Article+Rescue+Squadron&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1

I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.Ikip (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified Support, I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. Schmidt, 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot has already been made and approved

Found it: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Jayden54Bot

"This bot will automatically notify article authors when "their" article is up for deletion in an Article for Deletion discussion."

User:Jayden54Bot bot created and approved in January 2007.

More details: User:Jayden54Bot/AFDNotify

Opt out coding: User:Jayden54Bot/ignore.js

Currently not active, Bot was deactivated by the request of the creator, because he was "taking a very long wiki-break"

Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.

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

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

Looking back over the past few months, there seems to be a conflict based on some misunderstandings (as ever) mixed with some genuine concerns. The common thread to many of the discussions is a question: what is the ARS for? And the conflicts arise when there is an apparent difference between what the project page says and what the ARS is doing. The page says, in crude terms, that the project goes and tries to source and cleanup articles that are at AfD in an effort to rescue useful content. I think it would be impossible for any editor to argue that rescuing useful, good content is a bad thing (although we may all vary in our definition of "good" and "useful").

In recent times, the project has expanded with proposals for handling all XfDs, being actively involved as a group in examining policy/guideline alterations that affect arguments at XfD, etc. This is where a lot of conflict lies, because it doesn't coincide with the stated goals of the ARS.

I think there is a resolution in two parts:

1. Realisation, acceptance and acknowledgement on both sides that the ARS is a WikiProject working in a sensitive area working in a position mandated by, and for the benefit of, the community at large (just like any WikiProject)
2. A community-wide RfC on the scope of the ARS. That is an RfC, not a binding poll, so don't worry about votestacking, or anything. Have an RfC outlining what the ARS should do in addition to its original aim of cleaning up articles that are at AfD.

Now, I obviously think that this is a good way forward - what is happening now, where there is an endless tug of war, where the only solutions to the dispute being put forward are topic bans, blocks and the like, is not sustainable. I am willing to help set up an RfC with you if I am wanted (not essential) - make sure it is neutrally worded so there can be no accusations of bias. In turn, both sides may have to accept that the community wants/doesn't want things you don't agree with. But at the end of the day, we all come to Misplaced Pages to make a good encyclopedia, and we can't do that without resolving disputes like this amicably. Please give it some thought. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, as long as other ARS members agree. Thanks for the thoughtful, neautral and polite intervention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a straw poll, for all members. Ikip (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, Ikip. I can see it on your talk page. But the ARS deciding what the ARS should do will not end the disputes and the arguments from those outside who have concerns about its scope. I am also concerned that a poll about the ARS is principally about removing one of its critics, but that is a matter that can be discussed elsewhere. What I am proposing is a way by which you can stop all of the stuff that has been going on. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That is an issue of scope, and part of the ongoing dispute. I think that it needs a wider input - if the community agrees with the scope you propose, then noone can claim it is a case of personal bias. And vice versa, of course Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Me doing that in the first place started all of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

:Honestly, I think who should decided what is or is not in this project should be the members of this project, especially when what ARS is going is no different from any other project.

In addition, yesterday a huge number of editors spontaneously appeared on this project who had rarely participated in ARS, and whose edit histories show they are extremely opposed to the goals of this project. Editors like NUKE AND PAVE should not decide the fate and future of this project. This is a bad idea. Ikip (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an awkward one, I admit. :) A regular WikiProject interacts with a small range of articles, but even they are answerable to the community, and there are often RfCs about their guidelines or specific points. WikiProjects are owned by the community at large not their members (something they occasionally have to be reminded of! :) ), and indeed I have seen several ARS members remind critics of the "mandate" that the squadron have from the community - with community support of the expansion of scope, there can be no accusations of overextension for what is undoubtedly a very useful project. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your addition: Yes, which is why you have an RfC closed by a neutral administrator or bureaucrat, rather than a poll that could be stacked by those with no reasonable arguments. I hope you weren't associating me with any of your latter remarks? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"but even they are answerable to the community"

This sounds incresingly like this is a carrot and stick offer.

Is there any precendence for this? A wikiproject being dictated on what they can and cannot do by editors who are dramatically opposed to their very existence, asking the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy? Ikip (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure carrots and sticks come into it. I should point out that I am *not* suggesting the RfC cover the old scope of the ARS, which was limited to articles at AfD - there don't seem to be any disputes over this, so it isn't an issue, and so the existence of ARS wouldn't be at issue. And if it is a community-wide RfC, a handful of extreme positions aren't going to matter. And finally, yes - WikiProjects hold RfCs all the time. Unless you think that the entire community opposes the ARS (which seems unlikely) then an RfC (as opposed to a poll) should be fine. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I just barely wrote, I can't accept the idea that ARS has to ask the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy.

Those who delete articles are much better organized, ironically because they are involved in wikiprojects which support deletion of some topic. So I have no faith in a fair RFC. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is the next step in dispute resolution, and this is a dispute. And it is no more or less than any other group on Misplaced Pages has to cope with when they want to expand their scope in a sensitive way. It doesn't bode well for WikiProjects when they don't engage with the community at large over their activities and instead rely on their own membership for the rules. As a pertinent example,Esperanza springs to mind. A wide scope project, eliminated because it became too isolated from the rest of Misplaced Pages. I think you don't have a lot of faith in the community, and you need to, because collaboration is what has made Misplaced Pages great Fritzpoll (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Editor assistance, Third opinion. Neither have been tried. Again, ARS is simply wanting the same rights and priveleges that other wikiprojects enjoy. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And you shall have them! :) Editor assistance is unlikely to be productive in this type of dispute, and you ahve received third opinions to no avail, although admittedly not through a formal process. RfC is the next step - and to have one is not to treat ARS any differently than any other group on Misplaced Pages, nor is there a stigma associated with requesting external comment. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You've linked that essay here three times, which is three more times than I've linked it anywhere. I'm not happy with it yet. If you have a problem with it, feel free to edit it or take it to MFD, but knock off the red herring bullshit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid this argument in this section, please. I know it's frustrating, but if we can settle the content issues, you guys need never feel you have to interact again. Happy days, eh? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you are embarrassed by it. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The content issues are vastly secondary. The issue is Ikip's disruption of this project, with baiting and personal attacks and filibustering. It's a chicken and egg problem: well, nothing can be done about Ikip until this whole scope issue is resolved. But Ikip is constantly disrupting discussions of the scope, and starting new fights when the old die out. But if I walked away from this, he'd be attacking Fram or Thumperward or even Uncle G, exactly as he did above. This attitude that there is a unified enemy that must be organized against and attacked is toxic.

How do you have a civil discussion of contentious topics when even the subject of discussing the contentious topic is met with trolling? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to bait me again AMIB. And please WP:NPA, I would apprecaite you removing "trolling". "Ikip's disruption of this project" please. AMIB we both know the long laundry list of you disruption here. I can't believe you just said that, I am the one disrupting things. Ikip (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but a behavioural problem is best handled elsewhere than a project talk page. I understand the frustrations for both of you, but we've got to get past it. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a behavioral problem that faces the RFC. We have, above, a thread that got the sort of outside input that you're talking about, and it will be disrupted, in exactly the fashion above. This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for.

That's why it's a chicken and egg problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for", exactly right and one of the reasons i tried to hat this. Ikip can you not see the irony in your comment "You are trying to bait me again"? David D. (Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone chill out. I think the best way to deal with it is to abstract away names, and come up with a phrasing of the question/issue that both sides thinks is fair. Then we present that issue to a group of outside editors, while you both step aside and abstain from participating -- either you or your friends -- at least for the first few days. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, but ARS is not a WikiProject. I'm OK with most of the rest of the above comments, but ARS is not a WikiProject any more than 3O, MedCab, or AN are. In fact, I'd encourage ARS to jettison all trappings (membership lists, etc.) that are unnecessarily similar to a Wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine too. It doesn't resolve the issues of scope and clearly this is a subject of disagreement as well, which could perhaps also be included in the RfC. Let's not get bogged down in the arguments now - all you need to decide is if you want to organise an RfC yourselves to finally sort these disputes out. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Fritzpoll is right, we need a third-opinion. As neither an inclusionist or a deletionist, I've been trying to provide a third-opinion. (Operative word: trying.) But really, we probably need an independent group of Wikipedians to talk about this whole concept amongst themselves -- at least for a few days. Only after a consensus has emerged, maybe bring out some of the familiar faces on either side (both AMiB and ikip), but not until they've had a chance to think about the issue in abstract. An independent and wide group of Wikipedians need to decide if it's appropriate to recruit a group based on their inclusion philosophy and then begin linking that group to all kinds of deletion or policy discussions. I'm against this kind of campaigning -- whether it's done by inclusionists or deletionists -- because I think it turns Misplaced Pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, complete with home-bases, generals, and ... squadrons. I liked ARS better when it was concerned with improving articles, even if it wasn't perfect. I shudder to think what would happen if people disagree with that principle, and someone ultimately organizes an equally partisan group at WP:SCISSORS, with permission to link to the AFD discussions they want to. If that were to happen, I could only hope that administrators would disregard the !votes of both camps. But that's my opinion, and we have to go with what the consensus thinks is good practice. So let's figure out a venue to have this discussion, where it won't be contaminated by the usual voices for at least for a few days. Randomran (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What we need is to stop all of these kinds of discussions that always descend into accusatory terrain and get back to improving articles. That is what I tried to do with the two threads above. I cannot understand why so much time on Misplaced Pages is used on RfCs and the like rather than on article building. Best, --A Nobody 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more, A Nobody. But that's kind of why we need to get a resolution to the dispute - so that everyone can get back to doing what's important. A short-term loss of time in an RfC will be a medium-term gain in articles being improved Fritzpoll (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to personally see an RfC on anything that really accomplished anything other than just raise tensions further. The ones on editors (no need to name names, most here no who I mean) of both inclusionist and deletionist leanings hardly had any meat in the end. Ones on say Plot#Not just showed that the community is totally divided. I think a sign of who is here to improve articles would be seeing who all takes a stand against these threads that seem to go nowhere and do indeed answer my appeals above to divert energy back to article improvement, as say User:Dream Focus and I have been doing at this article under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, we have to resolve disputes somehow, and whilst I agree that RFC/U is a little bit of a time-waster, I have seen RfCs in this domain work quite well provided people can remain reasonably civil - and if we actually get someone to determine the outcome of the discussion, which a lot of failed RfCs do not do. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, an independent discussion would be helpful. Something without the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is nearly impossible to accomplish here. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly what me and Fritz are saying. At this point, it's time to work together to frame the issue, and then put it to independent parties, while we sit and watch for a while. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone from either "side" (I hate using such words) would never go along with that, though. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate that word too, but there are definitely sides here, and both parties are proud of their side. If we can't frame the issue in a way that both sides agree with, maybe we can identify the issues they agree upon, and let them both present their arguments where they disagree... then leave it to an independent group to look over and assess. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, we doing something proactive. Why not divide up the articles currently rescue templated and see how many we can successfully improve? Best, --A Nobody 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not going to happen until we deal with the issue of when it's appropriate to link to talk pages. Otherwise, we're going to keep getting the links, and we're going to keep getting the pushes into a discussion page, and we're going to keep getting the push-backs. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If AfDs are truly closed based on strength of arguments and not by number of participants, then it really wouldn't matter how many editors of a likely bias comment in the AfD. And as far as what we have here, it should be a common courtesy to ask for input from those who have actually been working on the articles under discussion, just as we typically (or should) notify relevant wikiprojects. It should not be about "winning" arguments or feeling somehow personally slighted if an article someone nominated ultimately gets kept. We should want or hope more than anything that when we nominate an article for deletion someone proves us wrong and actually improves it. That is what is best for our project, not scoring AfD wins or anything else, and getting input from article builders and those knowledgeable about the topic under discussion is worthwhile to reaching that end. Napoleon said, "There are people who really believe in their talent to govern simply because they are governing." That can be Wikified in many ways. Just commenting in AfDs doesn't necessarily translate into having some kind of super knowledge or expertise that somehow trumps others' insights. Just because someone has been editing for a time doesn't automatically mean they know better than the rest of us and what's good for the rest of us. I would much rather hear the viewpoints of those who are willing to look for sources and improves the articles under discussion than from those who are not willing and in some cases don't want to to the point of wanting the article deleted under any circumstance, because it's a "type" of article. Here, once again, we are making an issue of a non-issue and filling up all sorts of talk page space with words that cannot once again make me think imagine if all of this text (from sadly now myself included) were used referencing articles instead. One of the biggest let downs of Misplaced Pages is how much time all of us (as I am commenting here, I am guilty too), spend arguing over trivialities rather than building articles. We make waaaay more out of things than we should, because again, the end result is we get new insights from people in discussions rather than the same olds. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue is based on a legitimate disagreement as to how we obtain new insights for important discussions. Is it helpful, disruptive, or merely tolerable if someone organizes a WP-space based on inclusion philosophy, and then uses that WP-space to link to discussions? I'm sure there are deletionists and inclusionists where this is a matter of pride and "victory", so that's why it's important to ask the question as a matter of behavior -- using the rule equally across the inclusion spectrum. This issue is not going to just go away by asking people to focus on articles, because the issue is fundamentally linked to whether we organize the WP-space based on improving articles or we organize the WP-space based on exerting ideological influence upon talk page discussions. I don't think we're going to make much more progress here, because you've already made up your mind about the issue (although it appeared you leaned the other way), as have I. So to get closure, we need to put it to an independent group who can say "you're right AMiB, this is a problem" or "you're right ikip, anyone should be able to do this because it's helpful". That's not going to happen here. But outside editors are coming here to try and help out, and get it away from inclusionism/deletionism, so we can close this discussion in a non-ideological way. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We need not make a hash out of every single perceived issue on Misplaced Pages. We don't need a committee to iron every last thing out. Making an issue out of everything does more harm than not, i.e. it raises more tensions, makes editors bitter, and doesn't really improve any articles. We should reserve this much text for the really serious issues. Believe me, there's lots of stuff that I think flat out wrong and bothersome regarding deletions, but life is too short to get riled up over everything I am not happy about. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue that will cut across every talk page discussion that ARS links to. Unfortunately, this issue is exactly about how much text we should spend on really serious issues, and who that text should come from. Personally, I'd love to find a way to reduce the amount of text, by making that text less partisan. Randomran (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing anyone can do is to lead by example. Rescue some articles, show people how "it's done" as it were, and then encourage them to help in these efforts. Best, --A Nobody 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Leadership by example hasn't been working, unfortunately. Maybe we should drastically scale back the number of talk page discussions that we link to? Randomran (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was part of WP:ARS back when it was first started, I'll agree with Fritzpoll & Randomran in their statements. This WikiProject has drifted away from its original intent -- to save articles on notable subjects by improving them. (Perhaps the best example would be Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture -- Carcharoth took an article that was facing deletion because it appeared to be a crufty list of random stuff & made it into a wonderful article.) The reasoning was that if you knew a subject was notable, then you knew enough to rewrite the article so it was a clear keep. The purpose was not to organize inclusionists to vote to keep articles, not to provide one more battlefield for partisans, not to create an in-group like Esperanza reportedly became. You don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to further its goals -- but it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work. And if individuals try to twist the goals of this WikiProject to something else, then IMHO they are being disruptive, & should be treated accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There are diverse opinions from ARS members. The "deletionist element" (I hate such labels) are seen by some as disruptive in their actions, just as some perceive the "inclusionist side" as sometimes being disruptive. That brush paints both ways. So restricting what a member can or cannot do "as a member" might simply force folks to leave the ARS as membership being pointless... leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those few who remain and encouraging a perhaps geater "battlefield". Or is the reduction of ARS volunteer membership an unpoken goal? You correctly point out that "it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work". I personally find the community at ARS {both the inclusionary and exclusionary elements), and the limited tools we have, to be of great value to work on improving the project. Schmidt, 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"All are welcome" - says so right at the top of the page, so of course opinions will be diverse, and it would be good to remember that rather than get dragged into discussions of who is somehow "entitled" to be a member, who is a "leader" of the project etc.- all that smacks of ownership. pablo_hablo. 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of membership or not is not problematic - all WikiProjects maintain lists of members who are interested editors. I don't think there is any question either that the concept of ARS in the rescuing of articles up for deletion is not a very good one, and I would never suggest putting that up for debate at an RfC, since it is the founding purpose of the project. All the disputes here have a root in a perceived expansion in that role, as I mention (and so won't bore you by repeating) in my opening comments. My receiving a wider mandate from the community with a fresh perspective over whether ARS' remit extends, for example to all XfDs, the issues (and therefore the damaging and time-consuming arguments) are rendered moot and the work of the project can focus on article rescue, and whatever other areas ARS finds it has mandate to work in. A community-wide RfC is helpful because, as Schmidt suggests, such labels as inclusionist and deletionist are only applicable to a tiny minority of editors - most editors are some shade of grey. WikiProjects are for the benefit of Misplaced Pages - a collaborative effort of many editors of many viewpoints - asking the community for feedback on some of these issues is an obvious step to allowing ARS to get on with its job. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No argument here, the more feedback the better. pablo_hablo. 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - it seems there is a it of positive feedback in regards to my proposal. I will see how this plays out over the next 24 hours and then we can gather together the issues regarding the ARS that need resolving for the RfC. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll, I have changed my mind. If you feel like an rfc is the best thing, lets do an RFC. I have struck all of my disagreements. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you say that, Ikip - I'm not sure how well this would work if you weren't on board Fritzpoll (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it would go on without me, regardless, so I might as well catch the train, it beats getting ran over by it. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• And now discussions can begin on just who gets notified and how. Carefully. If the notification results in specific attentions of avowed "deletionists" or "inclusionists", one "side" or the other will cry foul. Certainly a notice at the villiage pimp might suffice, but I was aboard and working on articles months before I ever knew it existed, and fell it would not bring the input from a large enough section of the community. One way, might be to use the last (arbitrary number XXX) AfD articles tagged for rescue by ARS, whether kept or deleted or merged or redirected, and send a bot notice to every particpant of such AFDs... which would then fairly and neutrally include every editor from either side of the fence who particpated in such discussions either pro or con. "Inclusionists" cannot claim undue advantage to "deletionists" nor vice-versa. It is how those (arbitrary number XXX) of articles were improved or not which becomes the basis of the discussion and ARS's part... not who did it or not or what their motives were. Improving articles for the improvement of wiki is the bottom line. Schmidt, 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comemnt. I appreciate the potential for more clarity. In addition, the point that our project page needs to be updated per recent discussions also makes sense. We just had an RfC and that confirmed that TfD, and arguably other XfD items were fine for ARS. In addition some more experience folks in ARS and AfD/DrV issues seem to be aligned that at least some uses of rescue tag on DrVs are also acceptable. ARS is a Wikiproject concerned directly with AfD and as such various discussion on perceived problems and solutions of XfD have always happened. As is evident by even this last week's participation there are diverging opinions on if ARS is enabling canvassing in practice or spirit. Depending on one's views and interpretation of what it means to enable and canvass may set your decsion one way or another on if ARS does do this. As such I feel scope RfC would be a somewhat fruitless use of energy as our scope actually hasn't changed as much as been specifically clarified that rescuable content can be found across the encyclopedia. Stepping a bit into theory here, our good and best articles combine ideas as words, templates, images, categories etc to convey information. ARS is here to help find ways of rescuing content that benefits our articles and thus our readers. Scope is not been the core concern although that is a byproduct of contention which has been somewhat resolved. I have little doubt that RfC would support using ARS on most of not all XfD with the main concern of how do we make it work while mitigating problems. Thus our project page should be updated and clarified a bit, something I was hoping to do but have been largely derailed by the rather full discussion here instead. Talking is good but so is doing.
  
  IMHO, the issues to be worked out - on a project level first - is how to address the perceptions of ARS talkpage posts used to canvass and reactions to those perceptions as well as similar perceptions of the results as seen on AfDs.
  Regardless if they technically are or are not canvassing there really shouldn't be a need to battle over talkpage posts as much as approach them civilly.
  Seperately, but perhaps intertwined based on one's perspective, is the percieved canvassing on XfD discussions themselves. That is does the rescue tag cause canvassing or what? The answer IMHO is that it doesn't but there are always folks who will !vote poorly (both for or against) so addressing those editors would sem to make sense. As such ARS can have a proactive stance and look to doing a coopertaive AfD survey of recently-closed AfDs. Creating a list of all editors with "empty" !votes and contacting them to point out the waste of their energy and encourage them to more fully express their position. Personally I have a proposal for each of these areas and I think it would expeditiously help rather than what looks to more (another) lengthy discussions about perceived motives. If we can find common ground on how to civilly approach these issues I think that would make sense so all those interested in working on articles again can do so. -- Banjeboi 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I think we need to focus on what we should be asking, before we focus on how to ask. Actually, now that I think about it, your suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS.

Benjiboi, I have been thinking about it long and hard, and I am actually open to not posting DRVs and TFDs, simply refering these posters to sister projects, if those sister projects encourage the saving of articles, not to deletion. I don't know. I am up in the air about all of this. But if you feel it is settled, then it is settled.

It would suggest we all start to use the word "notification" instead of canvassing, which has a negative connotation.

I think a good basis to start from is our sister projects, what does and does not work for them, how do they approach notification?

Instead of maybe focusing on subject wikiprojects, maybe see what works on wikiprojects like, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Notability, which revolve around a template too, {{notability}}, their first sentence states:

"The Notability Project is a WikiProject based on Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability."

or

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam

they have {{Cleanup-spam}} Ikip (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The ARS diligently self-polices this talk page and removes any sort of attempts to direct attention to a policy or guideline discussion relating to notability (or really, any policy or guideline not germane to the functioning of the project). WP:VPP, WP:CENT, and WP:VPR exist for a reason. If people here are so worried about missing essential policy discusisons, they can watchlist the aforementioned pages. There should be no need to place any messages whatsoever here, as it's irrelevant to this project and as shown, has only served to inflame conflict.
2. ARS members who actively improve articles at deletion recuse themselves from actually !voting and instead note on the AfD itself that they have made improvements to the article. It decreases the possibility of any possible partisan conflict to zero and indicates that any possible improvement is made in good faith with no attempt to escalate any sort of conflict. A Nobody already does this (or has; his behavior changes so rapidly I don't keep track), so it shouldn't be difficult for people here to follow that. They are free to inform people on their talk pages to revisit their !votes to see whether their improvements are sufficient and continue to work on the article if they are not.
3. The ARS conducts fairly regular (say quarterly) sweeps through its members and removes inactive ones who haven't done any article rescuing. Uncle G's points above are salient: if you aren't actually doing any article rescuing, you shouldn't really be associated with this project. The premise of the project is someone no one—inclusionists and deletionists alike—will disagree with. There are quite a few people here because the ARS has been effectively turned into a political tool for inclusionists, which as the founding members of the ARS have adequately put it, was not the original intention of the project by any stretch of the imagination. Other WikiProjects do this ocassionally with their members by asking people to resign as members to show that they still have an interest in the project. I don't see why this should be any different. Project members already give out barnstars actively for rescuing articles, so motivation shouldn't be a problem here.
4. The ARS appoints a corps of coordinators to ensure that this is all enforced and that it stays on task with its intended goal: improving articles. See WP:FILMC and WP:MHC for examples. There's already plenty of maintenance work within the project, so this isn't a hard job to undertake. I'd recommend that people widely considered open-minded and accessible by both "sides" of the inclusion spectrum take the job. They should be readily apparent at this point.

If no one can agree to anything concrete here, then I'd agree with Fritzpoll that an RfC is necessary, and if nothing comes of that, then ArbCom may be appropriate to stop the behavior issues coming out of the rampant canvassing that has been seen here. It's greatly disturbing to see that so many of the original members of the ARS find the direction the ARS is taking to be grossly wrong, and if the current members don't interpret that as a sign that something is amiss, then we're going to ultimately end up at ArbCom as I previously noted. I pray it doesn't come to that. — sephiroth bcr 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive. It's really not very hard - find somewhere else to put the policy stuff, and leave this page for its original purpose - rescuing articles from deletion by improving them. Attempting to make this particular page into a general inclusionist thing is stirring up drama for no good reason - when it could just be put somewhere else. Rebecca (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, another proposal to neuter ARS from an editor whose edit history is completely opposed to the ideals of ARS. At least you didn't say you have the best interest of ARS in mind like others have.

Sephiroth BCR, you are a member of, contributed to (or been mentioned in) 69 wikiprojects, of those 69 wikiprojects, how many have had outsiders come in and demand such draconian solutions?

I agree with Rebecca, that "This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive"

Lets be fair here folks.

If everyone is so worried about policy discussions, canvassing, etc in wikiprojects, lets move this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Wikiprojects and we can have a RFC there, to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things. 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a silly suggestion, for sure, but it's not being helped by the fact that certain people associated with this project are going for the dramaful option instead of the easier one. Look, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist. On matters of policy, I probably agree with these people. But the drama-free way of dealing with this is to let this focus on improving articles to save them from deletion, and to ship the policy and canvassing stuff either to a) someone's user subpage, or b) some other WikiProject - which has the advantage of not enveloping something which is actually working quite well in megadrama. If that material disappears elsewhere, then so does the drama. Rebecca (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not throw out Sephiroth's suggestions so quickly. They are not bureaucratic but instead a way to separate the goals of rescuing articles from the non-goal of directly influencing XFD !voting, though I 'd argue the 3rd suggestion, about purging non-rescuing members, to be the only questionable addition. The fourth about project coordinators is something that many WP have taken up so that's completely fair to ask for. The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give this project the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an inclusionist cabal. They are not bureaucratic but instead simply reflect basic existing principles on WP (notably WP:COI). --MASEM (t) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, what do you think of the idea of having an RfC at Misplaced Pages:Wikiprojects to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things?

I think that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games, a project which you are a member of, and which actively discusses deletions and policy, should have these same rules too, what do you think?

And no, its not because of the alleged disruption of this project that we are different from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games. What rules have we broken?

I love this entry:

(←) Might I suggest we set out a project purge, basically going to all WikiProjects that deal with video games but outside of video games, and drop a message in the main project talk page that unless there is a "wait, hold it!", the project will be reverted to a Task Force of WP:VG? Obviously, the larger active onces will reply, but others will probably just be adsorbed. --MASEM 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Masem wants to create a "project purge" of video games, and yet he is here telling ARS how we should function, am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

Masem, I think WP:VG should adapt the first two recommendations because:

"The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an deletionist cabal."

Ikip (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do not see a contradiction here. I see it as a consolidation. No information would be lost, as far as I can see. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion (which was ultimately done) to move VG related WP into the WP:VG was a matter of helping to remove the extraneous weight of those smaller projects and to help them to come under the usual conformity of WP:VG. The only thing that would be deleted, if anything, were the pages in Misplaced Pages: space related to that project that would be unnecessary as a Task Force. That's nothing like what you are suggesting or the matter at hand of main space articles.

And when AFD notices usually go up on the talk page at WT:VG, they either are neutral, or are meant to help get more project insight on an AFD that is going the opposite direction that the project would have - whether this is keep or delete (eg just as if a large number of editors are clamoring to keep a barely notable flash game and thus the WP:VG are brought in to help assert what is necessary, there are requests to help prevent topics from being deleted). There is no implicit project bias to keep or remove topics. Unfortunately, there is an implicit bias by this project to keep articles - that itself is not bad nor should be removed, but it has to be kept in mind in all actions that members of this project take. That means advertising for non-rescue help for AFDs on this page is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I expected Ikip's refusal to even address the substance of my points and merely attack me, and would be interested to see what the other ARS members have to say. These aren't difficult requests. The ARS retains its core values and can safely remove any partisan influences from it should it implement my suggestions. Dismissing it as mere "bureaucracy" is rather vacuous also. Other projects have coordinators to manage large numbers of task forces, discussions, and other material (I should know, I'm a coordinator for WP:FILM), and arguing that this is "bureaucracy" implies that this is being created for no other purpose than to have a process, which is blatantly false. — sephiroth bcr 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree about coordinators being needed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In February, an editor invited 300 editors to join ARS, and selected these 300 editors based on their use of "inclusionist templates". (See an example of said recruitment.) Whereas ARS membership grew at an average of 7 per month until February, it grew by 65 in February before falling back to 26 new members in March and 15 new members in April. If these new ARS members were largely attracted by the viewpoint-specific recruitment drive, then notifying ARS of discussions may risk biasing and polarizing such a discussion (even if such notification is done neutrally and in good faith). If other editors were to use this combination of viewpoint-specific recruitment and discussion-linking, Misplaced Pages could quickly descend into a battleground between viewpoint-specific blocs.

Again, trying to summarise the two sides of this dispute. Undoubtedly overlaps with Proposal 2, but is sufficiently distinct. It may be possible to combine them. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The con here really needs to be rephrased. There isn't any "right" of notification intrinsic to being a Wikiproject; Wikiprojects are notified because it's a good way to alert knowledgeable editors. Because ARS has a completely unlimited scope, you're not likely to find editors knowledgeable about any specific topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about now? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the slanted title "ARS is a WikiProject with an unlimited scope over content", and reformated the text, removing more absolute terms, "any" "perfect". Ikip (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to work on this at a separate page. We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point. Merely listing a few options is not going to get good feedback, and definitely not on the main ARS page. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused Randomran.

You wrote: "I don't understand how you can ... continue to push comments about me and WP:FICT that are both incorrect and irrelevant."

And here you write: "We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point."

Our first contact was on FICT. You, Phil and Masem would have not suddenly shown an interest in this project if it was not for me being heavily involved in the FICT RFC, which would have merged or buried thousands of articles.

In addition, one editor here has been incredibly disruptive. When I talk about his behavior editors who support your position, cry foul, and say this is not the right forum to talk about this. But you freely talk about my behavior, first vaguely, and now openly, and no one who supports your position is arguing you should remove these comments.

In addition, no one here, in fact, no one anywhere has argued that I have broken any rules. I have followed all wikipedia rules. The rules guide or behavior and tell us what we can and cannot do. I find it incredibly disingeous to punish me, or by extension punish ARS for following the rules. Again Randomran, if you don't like the current rules, change them. But don't attempt to punish a person or project for following all the rules. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:FICT, and our first contact is irrelevant. I'm not talking about those events. I'm talking about the actual recruitment drive and subsequent talk page linking. Which isn't about you, although it's related to you. I'm not looking to punish or single out your behavior, but I don't think it will be possible to present this issue without talking about a few things you did. Specifically, contacting 300 inclusionists. I'm trying not to make this personal, so please don't. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Listen, we should be able to present this civilly and neutrally. We should be able to present what may have changed ARS's scope, and we should also be able to present how other attempts like AMiB were mishandled and needlessly inflammatory and accusatory. I think the first step is to move this RFC under preparation to its own page. Either as a subpage here, or somewhere else. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I STRONGLY oppose moving this to a side page. A sub page will only isolate the page, and lower the number of editors who contribute to this RfC. If we all really want a broad conensus on how to proceed, moving to a side page would not be good. It is obvious that several dozen editors, with varying views from all spectrums, are watching this page. There is no guarantee that this same number of people will watch a side page. Ikip (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the discussion would be widely advertised per WP:Advertising discussions. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with that approach is that the RfC becomes one that is behavioural in basis and causes people to "take sides" - it may be uncomfortable, but I think we can dispense with the history as regards the way the disputes have been pursued by either side. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a subpage, perhaps under WP:Centralized discussion or WP:Requests for comment, would be a good idea. Placing the main page in WP space would give it a separate WT page for threaded discussion. The main page can then be structured, perhaps like a formal RfC. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We're going to need to have a subpage anyway. It's an issue of organization and presentation, because having all those comments on the ARS talkpage is going to be a mess. But it's also an issue of getting independent feedback. We don't want to retread AMiB vs ikip, which got needlessly personal and accusatory. We want to frame the issue fairly, and then let a fresh and independent group deal with it. We can get appropriate feedback by advertising for it. Randomran (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, perhaps well-meaning but unhelpful, IMHO. We certainly are a WikiProject - we are considered a Maintainance Wikiproject. Our scope is XfD and the issues that impact what and how items are deleted. We specialized in finding and rescuing content that is encyclopedic and should be saved from deletion. Other projects in our field may specialize in creating articles and how to work with newbie users along those lines - we do some of that because those are some of the articles at AfD. We concern ourselves not mindlessly working a conveyor belt of items headed for the dust bin but also effecting positive changes that would make a lot less work for us by keeping some of those items from being sent to AfD. If our efforts greatly lessen the abuses of AfD so that only articles that really need to be at AfD are discussed we all win and community energy can be better focussed on seeing which ones really have merit. For instance, many articles should go through a merge process instead of AfD. We have gotten many waves of articles that should have seen a merge into list effort instead and then only those articles that were truely notable on their own broken out. So, we are a Wikiproject and I think the community would reject the concept that Wikiprojects shouldn't be notified of discussions that impact them. The notifications should be neutral and rather minimal encouraging centralized discussion. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But this is definitely disputed - it was disputed even as part of my suggestion to have an RfC above. Feel free to suggest things that you think are under dispute as well, as I'm still going through trying to extract salient questions Fritzpoll (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to stop trying to hash the issue out among ourselves, and just try to frame and explain the issue so that an independent group can deal with it. Randomran (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be instructive to note that a couple of the editors who have opined that we are a wikiproject, Ikip and Benjiboi, have themselves both been lightning rods in various disputes. Maybe there is a need for an ARS and a Wikiproject Inclusionism, for those who want to use the rescue list for purposes beyond the simple improvement of articles at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• This issue really got away from its essence. The idea that ARS is a WikiProject is an interesting philosophical question, and I guess it undercuts a lot of the issues. But really, the reason why this issue started is because of notification. We're not here to ask whether ARS should be allowed to have an article assessment template on every talk page, or whether ARS should have a task force to bring a few articles to FA status, thus making it consistent with other WikiProjects. Nor are we talking about whether to remove ARS's unique right to put its call sign right on an article, to make it consistent with other WikiProjects. We're talking about whether ARS should be allowed to notify editors of stuff that's only indirectly related to rescuing articles, and don't involve improving articles through the editing process. We're going to need to split this out into two issues -- the WikiProject issue, and the notification of policy RFCs issue. Randomran (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's really not. We don't create ways to divide who is the best Wikipedian nor do we find ways to cause divisiveness and gradiations in Wikiprojects. Even admins are considered, at the end of the day, editors. We don't - or at least shouldn't - excuse or encourage special treatment for any. Your work and actions speak for themselves. ARS is a maintenance Wikiproject but that's really just a way to differeentiate between subject-area wikiprojects. This is the thrird proposal that, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole section is off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter if this is or isn't a Wikiproject. It only matters insofar as Ikip has made the argument that Wikiprojects have inalienable rights. The argument on whether this is a Wikiproject or not is a distraction from "What is the utility of doing ?" If there's no good reason to do something here, then it doesn't really matter what other Wikiprojects do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's a flawed argument, too. Yes, WikiProjects have rights. But they also have responsibilities like article assessment, and article completion (e.g.: Good Article or Featured Article status) that ARS isn't concerned with. And they have limits that ARS doesn't, like not putting their call sign right on a main article page. ARS is unique, and I don't think anyone at ARS really wants to throw that away to become a WikiProject. Or maybe they do? Randomran (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, Randorman. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and all wikiproject-like things have the "right" to operate in the most efficient manner in helping the encyclopedia and the "responsibility" to not harm the encyclopedia or uselessly impede helping the encyclopedia. Talk page tags exist to help get interested editors to the project, article assessment exists to coordinate cleanup and article writing efforts, etc.

ARS can be a wikiproject, it can be a centralized cleanup page, or it can be a llama wool blanket; all that matters is if it's helping and/or harming the encyclopedia. Let's focus on the function or malfunction of actual practices, instead of getting in philosophical fistfights over ascribing rights and responsibilities to arbitrary structures. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets just call a spade a spade there are three issues I see here:

1. Major Conflict of interest. Asking many of these editors what Article Rescue Squadron should or should not do is like asking a spammer how to build the rules on spamming. The edit history of these editors is not full of rescuing articles, it is best represented in attempts to delete/merge articles.
2. Hypocricy and Censorship. Editors who regularly canvas in other projects and discuss policy on other wikiprojects are expecting editors here to follow rules that no other wikiproject does.

Here is an example of how FICT is canvassed and discussed on other wikiprojects. WITH ABSOLUTLY NO COMPLAINTS THAT THIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED, not once. Indeed, many of the editors complaining about ARS here, openly and actively canvas and discuss policy in other wikiprojects.

Keep in mind that this is only regarding FICT, other, more popular guidelines are 20 times as big.

I know the foxes petitioning to guard the hen house will not be pursuaded. "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Ikip (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

...is that seriously a post from October 2005? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wants a conflict of interest. That's why we're putting the issue to an independent audience. The worst thing that happens for either of us is that one of us gets an outcome we don't like. But the outcome will be fair if we represent both sides of the issue, and keep the "foxes" (on both sides) from circling the henhouse. When the time comes, we'll let the dogs decide. You will have your audience, but it will be an independent one. Randomran (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this page is more suited to discussing the way forward for the ARS in 2009 rather than what some editors may have thought about other matters four years ago? pablo_hablo. 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I hope more will take notice and help in threads like the one below, where I propose a contest. We really need to be getting back to rescuing articles already. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)