Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StrayBolt (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 25 July 2019 (→Suggested template revisions: comment, split up the list into two types). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article Rescue Squadron

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

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 20 June 2019, see discussion. No consensus, 4 December 2012, see discussion. Speedy Keep, 7 February 2012, see discussion.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

Subject specific guideline for List articles

I believe we need a subject specific guideline page for list articles. Please look over my draft, and give me some feedback. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't we already have this? Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many unresolved issues with lists - see this recent talk for instance - and in particular with WP:CSC#2. Lists of non-notable items are regularly deleted under WP:IINFO even if the topic itself is notable as a group, making it impossible to create an index to all related content that's covered somewhere at Misplaced Pages as sections of larger articles. Diego (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's article for improvement is... why is that there?

I just ignore it usually, but this is a bit ridiculous. It current says List of furniture types. All furniture types that exist are already on there, and it doesn't really need anything else done with it, so how can you improve it? Are these things just chose randomly by one person? That doesn't really go well with Rescuing articles in need. Dream Focus 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams is going to be deleted unless there are objections. What do ARS members think about it? If you object, do it in that talk page. If not, tell me here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jung Joon-Young

Jung Joon-Young this seems to be an article, but it is a complete mess. I don't know if it needs rescuing, deletion or strong advice/coaching for the editor. The Banner talk 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't bother reading through it, just fixed a broken ref, used reflinks twice on it, and did proper section dividers. Dream Focus 00:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it seems to be a legitimate article, perhaps even on a notable young Korean musician. Made a few copy-edits, tagged it... Much copyediting needed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Now it looks like an article, although with a lot of work to do. The Banner talk 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jovan Bubonja

Is Jovan Bubonja any more or less worthy of keeping than any other association football (aka soccer) player?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Watch

I've added the rescue squad list to my watchlist and hope to participate more in the future as time allows. Wondering if there is there a way to be notified only when a new case is added. -- GreenC 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles Rescued.

Friends, I just now provided a reference to the article Gezim Kasapolli and removed deletion tag from the article Nalini Krishan as it had references to reliable sources.Skr15081997 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper search engines by country

Misplaced Pages:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- GreenC 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

removed to talk

This information is unduly complicated for the average person who is not familiar with wikipedia, removed and moved to talk. Headtransplant (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC) {{Article Rescue Squadron Code of Conduct}} :''For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's ] and listings at ]'' This is a list and discussion of '''Misplaced Pages content for rescue consideration'''. When posting here, please be sure to: * First familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for ] and ]. * Include specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, and any ideas to ] the content. * Sign posts with four tildes '''<nowiki>~~~~.

• Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

The following templates can be used for articles listed here:

• *{{Find sources 3|Article name}} - Adds source search options
• *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
• *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times

</nowiki>

If you remove this from the page again, I will report you for vandalism. The instructions are there for a reason, and your inability to understand them is not legitimate grounds to remove them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your comments, I added {{underconstruction}} to the page. Please give me an hour to work on the page if that is okay. Thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not 'okay' - if you edit the page again without prior consensus, I will report the matter - you have already violated Misplaced Pages rules on edit-warring. Any changes should be proposed here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shutting down the project

Since active members normally just look at this list page, I'll post the notice here to get noticed. Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Propose_marking_Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_as_historical Some want to shut the project down claiming its dead, despite the fact people still come here and do great article saving work at times, like the example below. Share your opinions there please. Dream Focus 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC about proposed guideline amendment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the following text (or a variant thereof) be added to this page's guidelines: An editor who has already commented in an AFD discussion should not post the article under discussion to the rescue list, and an uninvolved editor who posts such an article here must refrain from commenting in the AFD discussion themselves except to issue a notification that the article has been posted to the rescue list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Per below, this proposal is withdrawn. It was clearly meant in good faith and would have solved some of the canvassing problems like at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, so I definitely don't feel I deserved the level of abuse some of this project's members have been giving me over it, but hopefully this will be the end of at least the harassment and personal attacks. Responding to said abuse has unfortunately taken up more time than I would have liked, and I didn't get around to figuring out how to formally withdraw a premature RFC, so if someone else could do that for me it would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot believe that year after year the "ARS canvassing" trope is still resurfacing. This page is no canvassing: deletionists are welcome to put it on their watchlist and hawk ARS-listed AFDs as much as inclusionists. That said, the rationale behind such a bizarre requirement baffles me. Why should one list the article here and not comment on the AfD or viceversa? By which logic should this avoid !vote-stacking (at most, it would get 1 comment less)? Can't one have an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask ARS to have a look at it? The only rationale I can see is to force editors to choose between ARS notification and AFD involvement, basically crippling both. This is unnecessary and detrimental to the project. --cyclopia 00:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Attendance at AfD discussions is very weak nowadays and so it's good to encourage participation. Typically someone who posts an entry in the rescue list does so because they have looked at the article, reckon that it has potential and so want assistance in getting improvements made. This is reasonable because AfDs have a tight deadline and article improvement is hard work. Editors who have worked on a topic and become familiar with it should be free to comment in the discussion, like any other editor of the article. People who work on an article should obviously be free to !vote on its fate as discouraging improvement of the article would be disruptive because it would harm the encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No. Just... no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just total nonsense. There is no reason the person trying to get help improving the article wouldn't participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Yeah, but what about cases like this and this where the poster apparently has no ideas for how the articles can be improved, and basically just link to articles that happen to be at AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Some people will check it out and if it can be helped, it will be. No restriction on who can ask for help here. Like all of Misplaced Pages, everyone is volunteer bases. Dream Focus 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as an unnecessary rule and complication. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's been several years since I was very active at AFD, but at that time ARS was pretty openly an a cancass board for raving inclusions--or at least that was my perception. Maybe it's not anymore--or maybe it still is, I haven't been paying much attention lately--either way the proposal seems like a reasonable suggestion for preventing canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)

  What about other Wikiprojects? Do you think they should do the same? Dream Focus 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as this goes against the function and purpose of this list. Furthermore, the NOM is posting multiple comments that make it obvious they have an WP:AGENDA against this project's goals; trying to eliminate its interference entirely by accusing it of WP:CANVAS and asking for its removal. Quite the opposite. It takes far more work than casting a simple, thoughtless !vote as so many deletionists do. We need the help. To do article rescue, it takes reading, research and a literate response. I can only speak for myself, but before I comment, I usually add sources; mostly sources that should have been added by ANYBODY who did a WP:BEFORE. But they didn't get added; not by the article creator (possibly a novice editor) and more importantly not by the NOM, who if they can figure out how to nominate, should be skilled enough to try Google first. Still we are at a huge disadvantage because there are so many, unsubstantiated, repetitive, serial delete !votes to counteract that get posted on *fD lists on a daily basis. It takes one or two minutes to leave a path of destruction of such thoughtless !votes across a day's *fD list; no rationale required. "Me too." It could take considerably longer, possibly hours to research to help one needy article. How much knowledge is being lost every day? At times, it is the few heroic members of this project that give any glimmer of hope to retain even a small percentage of the content that gets attacked and later removed every single day. Misplaced Pages is not censored, except, of course, when content is deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@TrackInfo: Actually, my "agenda" is in favour of this project's (stated) goals: fixing problem articles, not !vote-stacking. The problem is that it is being used by involved editors to canvas people who agree with them, and are very obviously not interested in fixing the articles (they have been aggressively refusing to do so). That said, if you have read all my comments, I have no idea why you would bother !voting at all: I clearly said I would withdraw it unless it started garnering support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I have no involvement in the articles you are nominating. My reaction is to the generic deletionist mindset. Every day I encounter overt stupidity, an echo chamber of serial mindless !votes, deceptive, secret tactics and wikilawyers who make a joke of confusing orderly discussion. What suffers is wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: I'm nominating articles now? What? That's news to me. I'm just trying to prevent canvassing and create a better encyclopedia -- this project is being, and has in the past been used to canvas keep !votes with the (false, in every case I checked, and the last one nominated by me was three years ago) veneer of "We are improving the articles to bring them up to standard". I don't consider myself a "deletionist" so I would appreciate your not painting me with the same brush as whoever it is you were actually talking about with your "AGENDA" talk above: I would appreciate your striking everything you wrote about me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, aggressively advocating for their deletion, you were not the NOM. That and your attitude toward this list clearly puts you in the deletionist camp. I don't otherwise know you. I make no assertions about you. But protecting this list is important. It gives us the opportunity to get other minds involved in rescuing articles. No editor can be an expert in all subject matters. I certainly know nothing about Poke. I have said in my user page for years, if you don't know what you are talking about, butt out. But that is not the case in these mindless !votes. So this list is a place to call for help; people who know how and where to find sources in unfamiliar subjects. Thank you for withdrawing your proposal. Trackinfo (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Again, no. It's been years since I "aggressively advocated" for any article's deletion. You are digging yourself into a hole here. I haven't even !voted delete in any current AFD. Please stop making these ridiculous accusations: accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks. Consider this your final warning. If my already-withdrawn RFC gets closed before you have a chance to strike your personal attacks, I will accept an apology and retraction (in the form "You are not a deletionist, you were not pushing a sinister agenda, you are not stupid, you have not been aggressively advocating for any article's deletion...") on my user talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, opposition to blatant canvassing and a distrust of insincere claims to wanting to fix articles rather than delete them doesn't "put" anyone in "the deletionist camp". You really need to drop this "us vs. them" attitude: we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not "fight" for our "camp" against "the other camp". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This page has in the past been used for disruptive canvassing by editors who were involved in AFD discussions, and the same (or a weaker form of the same) appears to have happened recently. Whether or not such canvassing works (i.e., results in a clear consensus to "keep") would appear to be irrelevant, as AFDs can be closed as "no consensus" when the result is a 3-2 split in favour of deletion (even by non-admins without the authority to close as "delete"). Since the purpose of this project is for article improvement and not for !vote-stacking, this amendment should be uncontroversial, but since it's a hard and fast "rule" I'm proposing I figured doing so through an RFC would be better than doing so unilaterally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• The proposer explained in this discussion that he's nursing a grudge about a 5 year old AFD. They should please see WP:STICK and WP:GETOVERIT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I seem to recall the opposite: I explained that I had been unaware of what had happened in the AFD five years ago until this week, and that I was confident that if I brought the page to AFD again now, without the worry about JoshuSasori socks hounding me off the project immediately the result would be different, so I was not holding a grudge. It should also be noted that, when asked to explain why you continued to expressed credulity towards the fringe claims espoused in that article (which is not something that was resolved five years ago and I am holding a grudge over -- your first involvement was this week), you (repeatedly) dodged the question. This seems like deliberate gaming of the system in order to prevent articles from being deleted/merged based solely on personal principle rather than correct adherence to WP:NOT. It should also be noted that the immediate impetus for my proposal coming now (rather than, say, six months from now) was not the discussion on VPMISC, but your own recent violation of the guidelines that are already on this page: you auto-opposed several AFDs (being the first to do so) and posted them here without nclud a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, any ideas to improve the content instead posting joke-y meta remarks, meaning that your posting them here served no purpose to the project beyond notifying watchers of this page that those articles were at AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I am no longer seeing this proposal going anywhere, but I don't want to withdraw it for at least another few hours since I publicized the RFC in several prominent fora and I don't want to give the impression of deliberately creating bogus proposals, annoying a bunch of people with them, and then withdrawing them before the majority of them get a chance to even tell me how I am wrong. If no one supports the proposal before tonight I'll probably strike it (and try to figure out how to prematurely close my own RFC).

I don't actually agree with the reasoning why my proposal wouldn't work (especially the ones that essentially amount to ad hominems against me), but I wouldn't be a good Wikipedian if I didn't know how to agree to disagree and be civil about it. At least one of the early "oppose" !votes (ironically the one that makes the least sense to me) is from a great contributor for whom I have the utmost respect, so I don't see this as any kind of "battle" between "deletionists" (or "haters") and "inclusionists", merely as a procedural matter over which I have a disagreement with some other contributors.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan: I am a bit surprised to see you opposing this proposal, and have half a mind to quote Captain Picard: "Sarek of Vulcan would never be afraid ..." :P Jokes aside, could you elaborate on what the specific problem with my proposal is? As demonstrated immediately above, the last several entries to be added to the rescue list serve no purpose but to tell watchers of the list that there are AFDs open, and were made by someone who had already strongly expressed a desire not to see the articles deleted/merged/userfied/etc.: yes, maybe strictly enforcing the guidelines that are already here (in this case, that you need to provide a coherent reason for not keeping and improving the pages) would make my proposed addition redundant, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Cyclopia: But is hav an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask ARS to have a look at what has been happening the past 24 hours? It looks more like it's an editor who already clearly doesn't want the pages to be delete posting incoherent "joke-y" links to articles that are at AFD, with no purpose beyond getting potentially sympathetic editors to weigh in. The Dragonite article, for example, should be re-redirected automatically per BRD: the redirect was stable for four years, in accordance with a long-standing consensus regarding standalone entries on random pokemans: Andrew posted a link to a completely irrelevant humour essay about wikidragons, with no explanation of how the article could be improved to address the AFD concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Repinging User:Cyclopia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at the time I posted most of the above, a few different AFDs had been mixed up in my mind. The Dragonite AFD would not actually be affected by my proposal, as Andrew had not (and still has not) edited the AFD page. Everything I wrote is still accurate and relevant, though, as I didn't actually say Andrew had commented on the Dragonite AFD, and he had !voted in the swamp monster AFD, and the content of his notification of that one is just as irrelevant (no ideas for improvement of the article, just a link to an article currently at AFD, and a joke-y comment), and in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure) which he stealth-linked in an entry on a separate page. I'm posting this clarification here so no one accuses me of deliberately distorting things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just a brief note for the members of ARS... I think you do great work, BUT... because you focus on improving (or “rescuing”) articles AFTER they have been nominated for deletion, you will continue to be accused of canvassing (rightly or wrongly). To avoid such accusations, I would suggest a shift in the way you operate... to a focus on improving (or “rescuing”) articles BEFORE they are nominated for deletion. If you searched for articles needing improvement BEFORE they get nominated (thus preventing the nominations in the first place) your efforts would be much more appreciated and you would be lauded by the broader community. In other words, be PROACTIVE rather than REACTIVE. Just a thought for you to consider... All the best, and keep up the good work. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Check the edit history of people. Many go around working on articles that aren't up for deletion all the time, even creating new articles. This wikiproject is to help rescue articles that are about to be deleted. Dream Focus 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sure they do... but what members of this project do as individuals does not change the perception that the ARS project (AS a project) is reactive rather than proactive. It is that reactive focus that opens the door to unfair accusations of canvassing. To avoid such accusations, the PROJECT (as a project, rather than as individuals) needs to focus on being more proactive. My comments were not about what you people do as individuals, but how your actions are perceived as a group. Of course, if you are content with your current reputation, you can always continue as you are. I am simply offering an outsider’s view and my advice. ‘Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'd be interested in any examples you could give of articles ARS recently "rescued" by doing the good work of cleaning them up and fixing their problems. To me it looks like they come in, !vote down the AFD, then walk away without ever fixing the article. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mottainai and the current Swamp monster entry on this project's page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope... not getting drawn into your petty squabbling... all I wanted to do was share an outsider’s thought about how this project could be more effective and avoid accusations of canvassing. Nothing more, nothing less. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• And Hijiri88, stop playing the victim here. You went posting all over the place making your ridiculous accusations, arguing nonstop with people, and got upset others didn't see things your way. The mention of the Swamp monster on the rescue page brought over a few who said keep, and others like yourself who want to delete it. Kindly stop making the canvassing accusation. Dream Focus 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Why can't you drop the off-topic personal attacks against me? your ridiculous accusations -- this meme is quite popular these days, but no evidence has ever shown up. arguing nonstop with people -- where? It looks like you're the one arguing nonstop at the swamp monster AFD. got upset others didn't see things your way -- where did I get upset? Where did things not go my way? Why did you choose to come back here eight hours after the proposal was already withdrawn and closed and get another string of digs in at be? If you don't drop the stick here, an ANI thread will be coming soon. You've been warned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your ridiculous accusations about canvassing, which the ARS does not do. You dragged this argument out in various places. I think I was clear enough. Dream Focus 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, so what if I said you don't canvass, but you don't seem to be very happy about requests that you fulfill your project's stated goal of "improving the encyclopedia" either?

Anyway, the claim to ARS not canvassing seems dubious, when you suddenly showed up at VPM, a forum you had never edited before, to attack me having never interacted with me directly, and only once indirectly at the AFD that I happened to link there, five years ago, and when I asked you if you'd received an email notification that said AFD was mentioned at the village pump you blanked my message and attacked me in the edit summary. You still haven't answered that question, by the way. Even if ARS does not canvass !votes for AFDs, I find it hard to believe that it was just a pure coincidence that you happened to show up there at that exact time: there was no notification on your talk page, on the talk page of this project, or anywhere else I can see that you might have noticed it, and you weren't pinged.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not attack you in the edit summary, I simply looked at your edit history and your block record, and decided I didn't want to bother with you. My message at was "I don't really want to waste time with you. You seem to argue a lot with everyone, and its just not worth the effort)" You also posted a message quite recently at another user's talk page, and they just erased it and ignored you also . Dream Focus 23:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't answered: I asked a legitimate question (twice) and you've dodged it both times. Anyway, I'm done with you. Go improve the encyclopedia. That's what I intend to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't answer because it doesn't matter. Sometimes I check on what others are doing, click the contributions of the editor, see if anything interesting is going on. And if you want to improve the encyclopedia, remember that that involves working on articles not just trying to delete them. Dream Focus 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As I told another editor a little above here, I haven't tried to delete an article in years, but I guess that's good advice in general so I'll follow it. And I think you missed my point: I wasn't asking how you knew I "argue a lot with everyone"; I was asking how you came across the VPM discussion. You couldn't have been monitoring my contributions because you had no idea who I was (even if you remembered the 2013 AFD, it was opened under a sock account, Sarumaru the Poet (talk · contribs)). But if we're done here that's good. I'm going to go continue listing all the MYS poets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: There are numerous projects focussed on article improvements such as WP:CLEANUP and WP:TAFI. The specific focus of the ARS is rescue from imminent danger. While we have lots of nominal members, few of them do much and so we don't have the resources to improve anything and everything. Motivation is the key and a tight focus is good for this, IMO. As an example of a more successful project see WP:WOMRED which has good participation because it has a strong focus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"He who defends everything, defends nothing"

— Frederick the Great

@Blueboar:Thank you for your support and suggestions and agree with @Andrew Davidson:'s response. (I'm late for the discussion.) I was attempting "rescues" before I had even heard about ARS. Every project's deletion list is filled with little calls for help. Is every nomination a form of canvessing? Now I found this list. Sometimes I'm in task-driven mode (proactive), which includes creating new or adding to articles. Other times I'm in deadline-driven (reactive), trying to save articles in time by finding sources. We all know there is a big need for both. I usually find it easier to improve an existing article than starting from scratch. Using a fire department analogy (thanks to all those real firefighters!), you can do all the prevention you can, but you still want a fire department. Yet, you can't save everything, maybe there are pieces that can be salvaged. For WP, we also have the luxury of choosing and often I don't know if it will pass "Notability" when starting out; so I'm likely to vote, if I do, close to the deadline. So be it accidental, arson, controlled burn, or a false alarm, it is good to respond. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: I don't see how restoring the above could be justified: I withdrew my proposal as a result of the harassment I was receiving from several of the more militant members of this project, and all but one of them continued to comment, inappropriately, even after the proposal was closed. If I recall correctly, I tolerated it at the time (even though I would have been wholly justified in blanking continued inappropriate discussion in a closed thread) because I thought protesting would just make things worse; but someone coming on four months later and saying you agree with the editor whose closest thing to an on-topic comment was this strikes me as needlessly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still playing the victim claiming anyone who disagrees with you is "militant" and giving you "harassment". Anyone can post here if they wish, you can't get whinny every time someone disagrees with you. You erasing someone's comment was not acceptable, so GreenC reverting you was justified. Dream Focus 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You see, the above is exactly why I never wanted this discussion reopened, not in February immediately after User:Redrose64 closed it (pinging in a perhaps-vain attempt to get this whole thing "re-closed") and definitely now more than four months later. DF is the worst of the editors who engaged in vicious personal attacks against me above (in fact has refused to focus on content in any of my dozen or so interactions with him since), but he wasn't the only one, so solving this by opening an ANI thread to get him blocked (something that would not be difficult when he writes things like this on a near-daily basis) would not actually fix the problem with continuously commenting on this RFC months after it was withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality? This is ridiculous. He goes to that AFD and starts arguing with me about unrelated things. Anyway, Hijiri88, you don't like this project, you already stated in multiple places you want it retired, you just argue with everyone in it constantly, why do you keep coming back here? Dream Focus 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So... first you tell me I am out of mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Listing "results" on the rescue list creating a false impression of more articles being rescued than not?

A bunch of recent listings seem to be put on here without a real possibility of "rescuing" the articles, as they are not in any real danger. The problem with this as I see it is that after the AFDs are closed the "result" gets posted on this list, often without an elaboration, except in cases where an article actually was improved and therefore "rescued", which gives the false impression that more AFDs listed here end in "keep" because of the efforts of the Article Rescue Squadron, when in reality of the last nine listings (all listings for the past month): three (this, this and this) were never really in danger of being deleted, one was withdrawn by the nom for non-content reasons (which were glossed over in the "result" statement here), one was deleted (without said result being noted here despite two other results being of more-recently closed AFDs being listed here in the four days since), one probably will be deleted, one ended in "no consensus", one may have theoretically been in danger but ended in "keep" after a small majority !vote, one was closed as "snow keep" (with the meaning obvious in the original close statement that WP:SNOW carried its original meaning of "there is no way in hell that this discussion is going to lead to deletion, so keep by default for now, maybe delete once the snow melts", but this was taken out of context when the result was listed here), and one ended in "keep" apparently thanks to post-AFD improvements (which were noted in the listing here).

Basically if the four that should not have been listed here because they were never in any danger of being deleted (the first three plus the Ragland article which would have been impossible to delete with or without ARS's involvement) had not been listed, we would be in a situation where the majority of listings here would end with deletion or with keeping by default for non-ARS-related reasons. Obviously banning the listing of "probable keeps and articles that don't look to be in danger" is out of the question (G.scaringi, who was clearly acting in good faith albeit under a flawed assumption that Japanese/Chinese/Tibetan readers watch this page, was responsible for half of them and believed there was a legitimate possibility of the Namloyak article being saved and the HPAC article being deleted), maybe it would be a good idea to amend the list's rules to either

• (a) disallow listing of results or
• (b) disallow selective listing of results (read: listing keeps but not deletes), listing of results that differ from the actual close wording (adding extra emphasis by writing "KEEP" in all caps, listing as "speedy keep" without giving the reason for such, etc.), or listing the results of separate related discussions that were never actually listed here (even if they took place on the same AFD page)?

Cases like this could also be dealt with by requiring verbatim adherence to the closing statement.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Another problem I noticed while researching the above proposal was that a number of the "result" statements, including some of the problematic "revisionist" ones, are not signed or dated, meaning the only way to find the diffs retroactively is either to hope the edit summary included the name of the article or to trawl through every single edit to the list. Obviously if these statements are not banned, we should at least make it a rule that they must be signed and dated like other talk comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• One of the articles you say had no chance of being deleted was one you actually saved. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hyogo_Performing_Arts_Center had no one showing up who could search for references in Japanese until you arrived, you then convincing the nominator to withdraw. The only other person besides you and the nominator that participated showed up before you and stated "all we need is a Japanese speaker to verify that for us" after finding a lot of Google results, and then said KEEP after you arrived and showed proof of notability. It was nominated at 20:17, 20 May 2018 you posting first at 20:29, 27 May 2018, the seven day listing over, could've been closed at any moment. So yes, there was a high chance of it being deleted despite being a valid article, that happens quite often even with only one person saying it should be deleted. It was 19:26, 27 May 2018 when an editor who didn't comment in the AFD posted on the Rescue List "This article needs a Japanese speaking editor to establish notability. Can anyone help?" So the article was saved in the nick of time. So the list did make a difference then, as it has many times in the past. Note that six other Wikiprojects had been contacted the day it was nominated, including list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you honing in on that one? It's the least "battleground-y" of all the listings, in that there was an amicable disagreement between me and the AFD nominator, I explained why they were wrong, and they closed their own AFD as speedy keep. That I noticed the AFD as a result of it being posted to the rescue list is actually irrelevant to my point here -- that some of the "results" listings, but specifically not that one, seem problematic -- and even there I didn't actually work to improve the article: I did a super-superficial source check and !voted in the AFD without ever editing either article. If I was talking about MFDing this page then maybe you could bring up the "Look! We wouldn't have an article on this notable topic if it weren't for ARS!" but what I'm suggesting here is completely unrelated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, as I told GS, I could have been just as easily reached by a neutrally-worded message on WT:JAPAN, as could a bunch of other editors with similar ability to check for Japanese sources to me. If this had been done (and GS's response implied that is how it will work next time), then yes, there would have been no need to post it here as the article would not have been in danger of being deleted as anyone who reads Japanese could stick the name of the article into GNews or see the Kotobank link at the top of a general Google search. (As an aside, it seems really weird that this would be honed in on as it totally derails the narrative that has been built around me over the last few months that I am a "deletionist". :P ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it was included at "list of Japan-related deletion discussions". They didn't respond. Dream Focus 09:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No message was posted on the WP:JAPAN talk page. I don't normally monitor the Japan-sorted AFDs, but I noticed it here and would have on WT:JAPAN. Anyway, are you deliberately honing in on this non-issue as an excuse not to comment on my actual proposal, or what? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue why bring it up? And I'm ignoring your proposal because its too ridiculous to bother with. Oh no! I used capital letters, and that somehow in your mind sends a complicated message to everyone. Is there one person out there who agrees with this Hijiri88 that writing KEEP in capital letters had that effect on people? Dream Focus 10:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue why bring it up? Because if I had selectively linked 8 of the 9 articles listed here in the last month rather than being comprehensive, you would have accused me of doing so deliberately (don't pretend you wouldn't have). And I'm ignoring your proposal because its too ridiculous to bother with. Oh no! I used capital letters, and that somehow in your mind sends a complicated message to everyone. Umm ... that's not my proposal -- did you actually read my proposal? You didn't read the diffs I linked here, but you also didn't claim you had. Is there one person out there who agrees with this Hijiri88 that writing KEEP in capital letters had that effect on people? Umm ... so ... are you going to comment on my proposal at any time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You mention the capital letters KEEP in your proposal: listing of results that differ from the actual close wording (adding extra emphasis by writing "KEEP" in all caps. And you explained why on the other discussion thread so I linked to it. As for your (don't pretend you wouldn't have), I don't have to pretend, since its the truth, I would not have mentioned that since there was no reason to do so. I'm not some obsessed lunatic who follows someone around Misplaced Pages commenting on every little thing they do, or have ever done, certain everyone is out to get me, and arguing nonstop about nothing. Dream Focus 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I was required to mention the capital letters in my proposal because I was addressing every listing in the last month indiscriminately. As for your continued gross personal accusations against me ... maybe you should try ANI? It's rather inappropriate to make comments like that on a WikiProject talk page, on like three separate AFDs, and even a few article talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note that if something is deleted, you can tell because the name of it is now in red letters, impossible not to notice. So no reason to state the obvious. Anyone could post that it was deleted if they wanted to. Dream Focus 01:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(With regard to your edit summary) I didn't actually say there was a conspiracy. And if it's standard prodedure not to list results when the pages are deleted, how do you explain this? It looks to me like deliberate revisionism: the article was garbage, should been deleted, should never have been listed here, and yet you and Andrew both auto-!voted "keep" with completely bogus rationales, but you wrote here that actually the article wasn't deleted at all because all the content was still located at another page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We did not auto-vote, we gave legitimate reasons why it should exist. And as I stated "It closed as delete, but the basic information is at Dark Lady already. Just lost a paragraph". Why should I not mention that the same information is found elsewhere, minus the opening paragraph? Dream Focus 09:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what is your opinion on my proposal? (a), (b) or neither, and if neither do you have an alternate proposal or a rationale for opposing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem here. It's fine to list outcomes of AfDs here, and whether or not something gets capitalized is too trivial to care about. I don't see a need to change anything in this regard. I would not want to see anyone argue for "keep" on a page that has been nominated and does not merit keeping, if it were done just to "win" an "argument" or whatever (and I'm not claiming that this has happened), but that's unrelated to listing outcomes here. Nor do I see anything misleading in the sense of making it look like taking credit for the keeping of a page. Keeping a page that should be kept is a good thing, and it doesn't matter who takes credit for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• I think we are still experimenting on form so I don't think either should be "rules" (I would say procedure). The results are imperfect feedback but still useful and should be done for all listed. I copied what was written from the close since that was easier and accurate. Not sure if closer signature should be included, if so the results could be quoted or bulleted. Adding one's own signature is already in the procedure, but I often forget and there is no autosign. Adding other summaries (reasons, lessons, thanks,…) are okay for feedback. Content of the Rescue page should only be about how to rescue individual articles: initial templates (find sources,…), how to improve the article, methods of rescuing (like Hijiri88's posting in related project WT:JAPAN, finding in another encyclopedia, or searching in another language), and idiosyncrasies of that article (alternative names,…). Seeing the methods in action reinforces learning. All other discussions (why the article should be deleted, side comments, personal attacks,…) should be on the AfD, this talk page, somewhere else, or not at all. That's my opinion. StrayBolt (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Talk to Books

I'd never seen or heard of Google Talk to Books. It seems pretty useful for Misplaced Pages purposes. It takes search to the next level, using AI to better find results that may not be in a keyword search. -- GreenC 15:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is too much WP:ABF in that section title, and there is already a standard notice of the MfD at the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The title has since been changed, which is good. It was originally "Deletionist revenge". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I call them for what they are. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Judge for yourselves. Res ipsa loquitor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment *Ongoing related discussion at ANI

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

One does not have to be a prophet to see the writing on the wall. WP:Dead horse. Some see this as an ongoing course of conduct coordinated by a group. Draw your own conclusions. Rhymes with "no collusion." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Result was keep. Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was: keep. Heavy snow in forecast" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor conduct

This project has been under continuous criticism for quite some time. There are two passages in the instructions and "Code of Conduct" that, if followed, may help alleviate canvassing concerns and adhere to the core principle of article improvement:

• "Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice." Although it is standard practice across the board to mention any project notifications that led you to a discussion, this is rarely followed here.
• "Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded." Your rationale should not be a joke, pun or other attempt at humor. Neither should it be an explanation of why you believe it doesn't need improvement. Please limit entries to articles that you feel can be cleaned up or otherwise improved to address concerns raised at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The first one was edit warred in by people not part of the project, they just getting together on someone's talk page, and coming over and forcing their way. No Misplaced Pages editor on any Wikiproject is required to do that, so no reason why we would be either. No reason for that to even be there, so someone who hasn't been reverted three times already please remove it. Dream Focus 19:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That spectacularly inaccurate description is referring to me. I've advocated "keep" at the MfD for the project page. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You added in nonsense all regular members were against. after you discussed it with others on a talk page somewhere. They then came and edit warred it back in whenever someone who in the ARS tried to remove it. Check the history. I find it ridiculous that those not part of a project can edit war in a ridiculous rule that no one is ever going to follow nor should be required to. The edit summaries show you claiming it would prevent canvassing which you were certain was happening. Anyway, more people noticing this now, can someone just remove that nonsense? I think I reverted it three times already so can't do it again. Dream Focus 21:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be just up to regular members to decide. This affects the Misplaced Pages project beyond them. And this is not a regular Wikiproject, so that objection strikes me as a bit weak. It is a Wikiproject which is tasked with rescuing articles, with all that that implies. El_C 23:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But it would be prudent, I think, for the Wikiproject regulars to come together and say something like: 'We know you have concerns regarding inclusionist-minded canvassing. That's not what we're about. But just to reassure you, we are willing to declare when we arrive at an XfD, that we were brought there via notification at our Wikiproject.' It just seems sensible, for the Wikiproject's own reputation. El_C 00:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dream Focus brought up the point that the clause isn't enforceable, anyway. I honestly don't have a good response to that. El_C 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No one else is required to reveal where or how they learned about an AfD. And there is already a rule for the addition of {{rescue list}} in the AfD so it's not like anything is hidden. On a personal level it is a bit of a privacy issue to document how and why I decided to participate on a page. Particularly in AfD where it can be used against you. -- GreenC 00:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think most of the disagreement is about whether use of that template really is or really should be a rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not the kind of thing that needs to be enforced. But anyone who chooses not to bother with it is setting themselves up for accusations of canvassing. It seems a lot more prudent to just do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see there being a privacy issue, this is all happening on-wiki. El_C 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I said this at the now-closed ANI thread: There are certainly ways that the project can be seen as canvassing for keep, but there is also a very straightforward way to avoid any whiff of canvassing. Just post at the AfD that the AfD has been listed at the Rescue List. Then everything is transparent. (And I urge admins who close the discussions take that listing into account when evaluating consensus.)... In my opinion, having a project that "rescues" and fixes keep-able pages is a good thing, and it's just a matter of the conduct of individual editors. Really folks, just disclose at the AfD that you have listed the AfD at ARS, and then everyone will be a lot calmer. And that really sums up how I see it, in terms of the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

But GreenC said that this is already a rule (adding {{rescue list}} to XfDs). The question is should the Wikiproject make a pledge for individual editors to disclose if they saw an XfD listed at the Wikiproject itself. I'm open to persuasion. El_C 00:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The "rule" to which GreenC was referring is the sentence in the Code of Conduct that I added, about posting the template at listed AfDs. And again, I don't see it as a "rule" that needs to be enforced, but rather as something that is simply the prudent thing to do. If you don't do it, so be it, but don't be surprised if somebody complains that you canvassed. By the way, the past discussion about this issue is at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template, where the history of what happened can be seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If members of the Wikiproject pledge to that code of conduct, that will inspire a lot of confidence in the Wikiproject's legitimacy and good faith. El_C 01:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And I don't even think that they need to pledge. Just make a good-faith effort to do it, instead of fighting it as if it were an attack on them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Policy already requires the same thing as the current wording of the CoC, which has been stable for about a year. Removing it would not actually change the obligation on this project's membership to comply with policy, but the act of removing it would send a very poor message about how this project views said policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Kindly post whether it should be kept or erased and keep the discussion in the section above.

• "Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice."
• Remove Dream Focus 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Comments that do not provide a rationale or explanation are likely to be discounted. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? The discussion was up above, no one convincing the others with arguments so no reason to drag it out. This bit has been there for a year now and never once has it been followed nor will it ever be, nor can you enforce it. No Wikiproject is required to do this, never has been, and never will. Those who support it are against the project and constantly spreading false accusations of canvassing, which have been disproven time and again. The fact that members of a Wikiproject can't control what's on their own page, but those wishing to eliminate it can, is simply ridiculous. Dream Focus 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per my simultaneous comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think a straw poll will be helpful. Chances are only the editors who are already involved in this (minus Jytdog, who committed wiki-suicide last December because he was fed up with the project, deciding to go out with a bang by violating WP:OUT and getting site-banned by ArbCom for refusing to apologize -- going into detail to clarify that his ban had nothing whatsoever to do with ARS, canvassing, deletion, or anything of the sort) will comment, and we already know how all of us feel about the matter. This was, if I recall correctly, brought before the community in a fashion last year (I think it was on the talk page of a prominent admin, but I might be mistaken), with everyone who wasn't already an ARS member agreeing that the note about canvassing needed to stay in. Re-counting the same !votes with one or two new keepist "there is no canvassing" !votes added and Jytdog no longer around doesn't indicate a change in the previous community consensus on this matter so much as ... just that, one or two new anti-deletion voices wanting to be allowed violate the canvassing policy. (Also, both the recently-closed MFD and the recently-closed ANI had unanimous consensus among those who mentioned it that the page should stay and that posting here wasn't canvassing as long as the COC said what it did and this project's members followed it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove It is not a "Guideline on canvassing." That assumes a fact that is erroneous. There is no WP:Canvassing.

When AFD postings are done on other projects, that fact is noted on the AFD discussion. We should do that too. We should be an open book.

It is an ethical and practical guideline, and if it is refactored to change its wording and emphasis, then I would support Keeping it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment As a matter of practice, I simply put the notice that it was listed here into an AFD discussion as soon as it is listed. It has nothing to do with canvassing, IMO. And I may or may not !Vote at the AFD; and that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the notice posting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove People come across discussions in a variety of ways and there's no general requirement to explain how one found a discussion that one participates in. Doing so would be clutter which would tend to distract from the substantive points being made. The sentences in question are neither policy nor guideline and so should be dismissed per WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Andrew has been called out in the past for a poor understanding of what constitutes "canvassing". Yeah, it's possible his comment (which didn't make a lot of sense and was mostly just an ad hominem against the OP) was just petty "revenge" against an editor he didn't like, but he did frame his comment as a "Not canvassing" !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - In the interest of transparency. If there is a problem with WP:ARS participants piling on with non-policy-based or poorly-supported "Keep" !votes, this will help alert closing admins. This is something that the project should be in favor of since it would not affect editors who actually do the work of improving articles. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No one who is lazy/badfaithy enough to vote stack is going to be so conscientious as informing they read about it at ARS. -- GreenC 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — absence of which has the danger of bringing the Wikiproject into disrepute. This should be an RfC, so that it isn't only an internal Wikiproject matter. El_C 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove It is unenforceable leading to bad faith assumptions and setting the stage for incriminating disruptions. It is a violation of privacy, no one else needs to reveal how or why they decide to participate in an AfD (I often see cases that must be discussed off-site but there is no way to know). There is already a suggestion to tag the AfD page when it gets included at ARS, no problem. Furthermore it does nothing to appease canvassing concerns, if anything it will inflame it by making an issue over it. Canvassing concerns about ARS are fundamentally bad faith assumptions, bad faith can never be appeased it will always exist. -- GreenC 16:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This needs to be a community RfC. If the passage is removed based on this farcical "straw poll", I will open such an RfC myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Why do editors think they can come to a group...and force their version of a code of conduct on the groups participants? The fact that some of these same editors who make it their mission to undermine the credibility of the ARS - are then allowed to vote on the rules governing the ARS is complete foolishness. Members of a group agree to their own rules and code of conduct. User:GreenC has valid points about privacy, and good faith Ivotes. As an aside, I am quite proud of the ARS crew. Hold your heads high! The ARS is both collegial, and important. I am very happy that I am allowed to be a member of this group. User:Lightburst 21:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? WP:OWN. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:OAS? However this addition...is unenforceable and assumes bad faith. And there are those voting here who would destroy or remove the group if given the opportunity. My point is this kind of democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. User:Lightburst 22:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I definitely meant what I said. And just a few days ago I argued for keeping the project, when it was brought to MfD, so I'm hardly trying to shut it down. The bottom line is that everything at Misplaced Pages is subject to community consensus, and we never have subprojects that get to make their own rules in place of existing policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove – And this part should be removed until we know the outcome of this poll. The addition of such dubious and problematic material needs to occur AFTER the discussion, not before. During a deletion discussion, the closer is supposed to assess the quality of the argument, not the number of votes. Looking at previous deletion discussions that Article Rescue Squadron has been involved in, it's clear that the focus is assessing notability and expanding content. That's what ARS does, that's what everyone else ought to do also, and that's what the closer of a deletion discussion should take into account. It's clear enough that the addition of the contentious text is a misguided attempt to "fix" an issue that unequivocally never existed in the first place.Worldlywise (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a highly counter-factual description of what actually happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question. How is this straw poll going to be closed? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter. Seems apparent there isn't consensus one way or another, even if one takes a hard-line position of NC = Keep that neatly papers over a reality of lack of community support. Probably it needs to be refactored in a way that is more acceptable, the current version is too controversial is what this straw poll is showing. -- GreenC 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate that answer. In my opinion, there is a lot of room for revising the contested material, and it would be more productive to work collaboratively on that. In the event that there are some sub-aspects of the wording where editors here continue to have no consensus, it could be very good to have a true RfC to get more input. If editors here are receptive to any of that, in place of continuing the straw poll, I would welcome that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If anyone expresses an interest in working on that in the next couple of days, that will be most appreciated. If not, I'm going to start a real RfC at the Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion a community RfC at Village Pump would be the best way to set clear, agreed-upon expectations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The solution is to refactor the controversial portion so it is acceptable to all parties. To that end I have not seen any proposals or BRD diffs, no steps have been taken to resolve it, despite all the good arguments and points made here. If you are trying to push a favored position with a VP RFC, there is nothing more to be said other than "see you court". As many previous ANI/MFD/RFC have shown getting consensus for anything with this group is not terribly easy unless you also have support from regular members, since it is their co-operation that is required to make it work in practice. -- GreenC 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't want to see anyone in court. I'll create a first draft of possible revisions, in talk, within the next few days. And then we'll see where we go from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. See also my comments below. There are two types of notification and we already do one. This poll was about removing the requirement for a second notification. -- GreenC 06:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep/retain Seems perfectly reasonable. pbp 23:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove It seems part of the problem is: Is this a list or a noticeboard? If we make it into a standard list like the other projects, then the standard "included" is the norm, without individuals saying where they saw it. If it is a noticeboard, I think some of them say you should post where you heard about it, but I am skeptical about how consistently editors do that. And what if you heard about it several places before editing it? Maybe the tools can help call out suspected "canvassing" in a consistent manner, be it for or against. StrayBolt (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Per Andrew D., this has no reason to be here. Naomi.piquette (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a quite reasonable and rather minor step, especially given the concerns expressed above (and previously, many times over the years). I mean, even deletion sorting involves a post to the AfD page itself -- and in that case the uniting factor is interest in the topic, not interest in keeping articles. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• BTW as this would affect potentially a lot of AfDs, and given there have been many more public discussions about this project in the past, making this into an RfC rather than something only pagewatchers will see seems appropriate. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Without objection I would like to close this straw pool. It is causing confusion. The RFC isn't about informing the AfD, that is already being done and is uncontroversial. It is about additional secondary level notification requirement on a per-person basis ie. every person who !votes includes a statement that they came there because of ARS as part of their !vote. This in addition to the normal template notification that the AfD was included at the ARS noticeboard which is already done and non-controversial. The RfC is unclear about two levels of notification and many Keepers are !voting based on the understanding that there must be notification of any kind. Furthermore people seem freaked out about a "straw poll". It has gone off the rails. -- GreenC 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that -- several of the !voters on both sides have made statements that make it clear they are talking about the content that was added last year. The present dispute essentially started when an editor removed virtually all the text that had been in the CoC since last March; very few are making a distinction between informing the AfD and individual AfD !voters mentioning that they came from ARS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The initial proposal does not make clear any of that history, which we can't assume everyone knows about, nor can we assume everyone !voting here understood there are two types of notifications: AFD-wide and personal disclosure. It actually has been a point of confusion, see threads below with Tryptofish. None of the Keepers made a recognition that notification is already being done, no one explains why there need to be TWO notifications, they only say there needs to be notification, but then ignore the fact notification are already done. -- GreenC 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Code of Conduct" be renamed?

Some editors say that they are troubled about the enforceability of the Code of Conduct. I don't really see the need for regarding it as something that needs to be "enforced". It's the kind of thing where it's sensible to follow it, but if you choose not to, that's a choice you can make (and not be surprised if other editors find fault with that choice). Would it be better to simply rename it? Perhaps to "Best Practices"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And those who post a listing at ARS should be encouraged to contemporaneously put the notice at the AFD. It is best practice, and cuts down on the negative nattering. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you consider it the best practice for every single editor to state they saw it on this list before going to the AFD? You know that's never going to happen. A notice that it is on the Rescue list is all that is required, and most do that anyway already, just like all Wikiprojects do. The other bit is just total nonsense and you know it. Dream Focus 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said that every single editor should say they saw it on the ARS list. What I thought I was saying was that the fact of its being on the list should be put on the AFD. That is all I meant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Should it be revised instead of deleting it?

I can see the point about stating that one saw the listing. Instead of deleting the sentence, would it make better sense to revise it? How about changing This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice, and use Template:Rescue list to something like This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was to delete that one part of it. I thought I was clear enough when I suggested it. It already says to use Template:Rescue list, that not the part we're discussing. Dream Focus 21:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you were proposing to delete all of that, and just forgot the last part of the second sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what should be done. But as Dream Focus says, it already says this, so changing the wording would just add a duplication. -- GreenC 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate entries

I propose removing the following entries which are not focused on article improvement:

1. "Winter is coming" "I've just snow-closed this but it may just be the start and I don't want to get too involved for fear of spoilers as I've been saving the last episode. ARS members may want to patrol the topic like members of the Night's Watch on the Wall."
2. Battle Bag "What's in your battle bag when you turn out to rescue another article? It's good to think of a shortlist of policies, references and sources with a stock of canned text and templates for the recurring issues we encounter. We should start another tab for this here, as a checklist of good ideas and resources."
3. "Crush, Crumble, Chomp" "I've not seen the new Godzilla movie yet but suppose that the local real estate takes a pounding. Meanwhile, here in Misplaced Pages, someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City!"

–dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything posted appeals to a desire to save articles from deletion which implies article improvement. -- GreenC 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments like "someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City" imply that the deletion nomination, not the state of the article, is the problem. This seems to be an attempt to "save" articles by bringing in Keep !votes, not a call to improve them. –dlthewave ☎ 19:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are projecting your own reactions on the posted listings. You have zero evidence of the poster's intent. Nor do you have evidence of other user's reactions or intent.

Your unilateral removal of these was WP:Vandalism. Don't do it again! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone gone there and posted KEEP? Those articles are rather short. I went to one and suggested merging it with another article. So claiming that someone posting there leads to people going to keep, is incorrect and in bad faith. I've added things to the list before that got zero people to vote in the AFD at all. See Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Who_Will_Rock_You for an example of that. If no one can find sources the article gets deleted. And if you have a problem with that one editor who writes colorful descriptions when he post something, why not discuss it with him on his talk page? Dream Focus 19:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed see two project participants who !voted "Keep" at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle bag without taking steps to improve the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did search for reliable sources but couldn't find anything new to add to the article. I did discuss without saying keep at first, then two days later when someone mentioned a category existed for things that were similar I said to KEEP and rename it and include those things to make a proper article. I didn't just show up and say KEEP and nothing else, nor do I ever do that. Dream Focus 09:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• dlthewave I too believe it is vandalism to revdel a user's additions - especially during a time when an ANI is open. At its worst it is vandalism and at best ill-advised. I sent you a dove anyway because I hope we find ourselves on the same side in the future User:Lightburst 20:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Thanks, I appreciate the thought. I understand why the deletion wasn't well received and I hope we can move past that to discuss the propriety of the entries themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that those entries violated the code of conduct as it existed before I even knew ARS was a thing. Editors posting here are, and apparently always have been, obliged to provide a valid reason for keeping the articles in question. The "winter is coming" one was not "appeal to a desire to save articles from deletion which implies article improvement", since those articles are all WP:ALLPLOT content-forks of pre-existing lists, with no evidence having ever been provided that the topics are notable out-of-universe. (And that's something I was also saying before I knew what ARS was.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Those instructions have no standing as policy or guideline and, per WP:NOTLAW, should be toned down if they don't represent what actually happens here. They are currently self-contradictory in that they want a reason why the topic should be kept but that the notification should be neutral. Urging reasons to keep is not neutral, is it, and so you can't have it both ways. My view is that listing an entry here is self-explanatory – it is implicitly a request that the topic should be considered for rescue. My usual approach is to suggest that working on the topic would be interesting and/or educational. It is a big challenge to work on an article which is at risk of deletion within a week and so editors need reasons to take this on. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

None of these entries, including the new one "Epistemology of Misplaced Pages", provide any sort of rationale for why the article should be kept or ideas for improvement. How would editors be motivated to improve an article if you don't provide any of this information? It may not be your intent, but these entries often result in a barrage of "Keep" !votes with no actual improvement to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to tell people "need help finding reliable sources to prove this article passes the notability guidelines" every single time. They know that already. Its what the Wikiproject is all about. And please show where this "barrage" of keep votes has appeared. The current list has articles that had no one go to vote keep in them and got deleted. No one ever votes without a reason. Dream Focus 19:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are votes without a reason. Keep & expand per above. No compliance with ]., Keep for reasons cited above. No compliance with ]. Saying as per above is not a policy based vote, its laziness. It the equivalent of saying "I want the article kept, so any reason someone can come up with is a good reason." And WP:BEFORE is not a reason to keep unless you can actually prove that there are sources and even then accusing someone of not complying with BEFORE is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and does not assume good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Both of those links are the same editor,7&6=thirteen, who also added content to the articles in question. Dream Focus 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That I add content and vote at AFDs is my privilege. And the reasons and comments are factual, and get to say what I want. I note that overwhelmingly, when I get involved, the articles are improved (many go from WP:AFD to WP:DYK), and are Keeps. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So there is a lot more article improvement going on that you ignore. If those who propose WP:AFDs find all the relevant sources that wind up in the article, WP:Before would not be an issue. I don't presume to tell you how to vote of what to say at AFD discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. I suppose you actually did WP:Before here.x If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene? Given the present state of the article, indeed why have you not withdrawn the nomination? But that' a matter for your conscience; ride that into the ground if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do no unilaterally remove other people's entries from the list. If there is a dispute, this is a consensus-based encyclopedia. Take a quick straw poll to see where consensus is about an entry. -- GreenC 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on this talk page

Without naming names or taking sides, I will say that the refactoring and removal of other contributor's comments on this page and on the list itself is unacceptable behavior in Misplaced Pages. Keep it up and I will go to WP:ANI. I will kill them all and let God sort it out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeez. Violent rhetoric much? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably the less this forum shows up at ANI the better. At some point disruption is the only concern and no one cares who is right or wrong, only that the disruption ceases. Normally this is done by blocking a page from editing which could be done to this group (again right or wrong doesn't matter - only that the disruption immediately ceases). Suggest that any disputes be done through consensus on this talk page with quick "yes/no" straw polls. -- GreenC 16:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I want this project to succeed. I trust we all do. If you aren't on board for success, find another project. It was only a metaphor, which some of you may not understand. Hopefully this got everyone's attention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see the recent edit warring in the history of the list page (and I agree with those who say that it was perfectly OK to make that listing). But I don't see any recent reverting or refactoring on this talk page. Do I misunderstand something? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone please vote on the code of conduct

In case you don't notice, I started a strawpoll in an above section Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Straw_Poll. The discussion seems to have died off so time to just make a decision. Dream Focus 03:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

The "List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants" does not meet this project's goal of article improvement. The explanation "Gateway article to separate lists of all the world's cities. Listed alphabetically by name and by country. the related lists are up for deletion, too. I think this pivot point is useful to Misplaced Pages's readers and should be WP:Preserved. WP:Not paper and question about sourcing." is nothing more than someone's argument for why the article should be kept, and I consider it a form of canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 12:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No "canvassing." What part of sourcing do you not understand. Clearly the deletion of scores of articles is within the scope this project. Your attempt to censor what can be posted here is unsupported by reason, rule or policy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not canvassing. 7&6=13 gave a rationale as is the practice of the members. So a member gives a rationale and it is canvassing...but I seem to remember you deleting the proposals by another member for not giving a rationale. Lightburst (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In part, because of the unique fact that this involved not just one article, but dozens, it required an explanation. A mere listing of the single article without comment would put the controversy into a false light, and deprive project members of vital information. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• As I stated in the AfD. I could improve these references with mainstream sourcing. However the main stream sourcing would just use the same censuses that the UN used. That seems like a time waster. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Note that most active members of the Article Rescue Squadron already commented there before it was put on the Rescue list. I found it since I bookmarked the List Wikiproject, looking into that at least once a week. It is understand. without having to explain it every single time, that when you post something on the list you want others to help find reliable sources to prove its notable and to help fix the article when needed. You do not have the right to remove someone else's post though. Dream Focus 13:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggested template revisions

Sorry that it took me a while to get this done, but here are my suggestions about the "Code" template. On the left is the present-day version, for ease of comparison. On the right are my suggested changes.

ARS Code of Conduct Note that this wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to. || Project Best Practices Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. Please be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

I've made two changes: the title at the top of the template, and the wording in the controversial part. I hope that this is helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• For reference here it was before it was changed without consensus.

Project Code of conduct Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I object very strongly that you describe that change as having been without consensus. That is untrue and gratuitously inflammatory. It was a controversial change, and did not have unanimous consent, but that is not at all the same thing. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template. We can waste time relitigating that earlier discussion, or we can move forward and consider what I suggest here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You can object. However you displayed two templates. And you made them both. The one you posted on the left was allowed to stand. The one I posted (below your two) was before you altered it. Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This needless personalization of every square inch of battleground is why this project attracts so much concern from other editors. I contributed to making the template shown first here, but I did not, by a mile, make those changes alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus by the Wikiproject members were against it, as you well know. You posted on a talk page with others complaining about the ARS, and you then all came over and edit warred it in. Just change it back already since you know no one is ever going to take your nonsense bit serious anyway. And we already had this discussion above. It already says to use the Template:Rescue list in AFD on the left of where this will appear, where it explains how to add things to the list. No reason having it in two places. At least you are finally willing to finally accept that the "This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice," nonsense should be eliminated, that what everyone was complaining about at the start, and throughout this long drawn out pointless debate. Dream Focus 00:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish I understand you feel you have the right to change the template the ARS. The members do not want this forced on them, and as Dream Focus has said, there is no way to enforce it. As it is every item placed on the rescue list gets a notification on the AfD.

A few weeks ago you forced this change on the group, and a straw poll was initiated: the poll was in favor of removing the changes you made (left template). So now you posted the template you forced on the group, and said do we want that one ...or another one you also made. I do not think my attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND instead I am puzzled. Nearly everything on the project happens with consensus, so why is that not the case in this situation? As an act of good faith, you should return the template that you originally removed and then perhaps your two templates you posted above can be considered. Just a thought. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please get the facts right. A few weeks ago, I did nothing of the sort. A few weeks ago, someone else, not me, made some attempts to have this project shut down. I argued in favor of keeping the project. In the reaction against that stuff happening, a straw poll was started about the template.

And since I'm talking here about getting the facts right, you actually did not post, here, the version of the template that was in effect before the controversies started. You got that wrong. You need to look more carefully at the edit history, to find the version that preceded the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• before it was changed without consensus is a bogus lie, by someone who showed up a full year after it had been changed in accordance with consensus and was stable, and started edit-warring over it. This lie should be retracted, and if not the editor should be page-banned to prevent further disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Statements such as "Consensus by the Wikiproject members were against it" and "The members do not want this forced on them" imply that the opinions of "members" carry some special weight. The fact is that although wikiprojects have a certain level of autonomy, those who participate in the project or appear on the member list do not get do decide how WP:CANVASS and other guidelines apply to their activities. Since WP:ARS conduct directly affect our deletion process, it is entirely appropriate for this to be a community discussion. I would suggest posting this as an RfC at Village Pump after this discussion is complete. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support the "Project Best Practices" proposed by Tryptofish. It is helpful to have the specific expectation that folks post the Rescue List template at AfD instead of the nonspecific "follow the canvassing guideline" advice, and this version omits the controversial requirement that each editor mention they saw it at ARS. I would also suggest that this be ratified in some way by the community so that we can't use the "unenforceable" argument to later ignore whatever it is that we agree on. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  The "unenforceable" argument I used was for the part you are suggesting eliminating now, since you can't force anyone to tell you what Wikiproject list they saw before going to an AFD. It has been ignored by everyone for over a year since its just ridiculous. As for the other bit, almost everyone already mentions when they added something to the Rescue List. From time to time I forget, then someone else adds it for me. Having the instructions on putting a notification in the AFD in two separate parts of the same page right next to one another, doesn't make it twice as likely someone will see and remember it. Dream Focus 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I want to thank dlthewave for those very reasonable comments. Other editors, unfortunately, are continuing to rehash past grievances instead of discussing what I actually proposed. Ironically, what I have proposed goes in the direction that these editors seem to want, so I would have thought that it would have been seen as, at a minimum, a step in the right direction. Please look again. If not, I will indeed take this to the Village Pump as dlthewave said. It might be a lot more palatable to instead take "yes" for an answer here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - We should break up the list into two types. One should be a similar list to most other projects where the automated tools help adding AfDs to our list as well and adding the notification to the AfD. The other can be more freeform with ARS discussion. Also, Focus on improving content does not exclude arguing keep. There are bad AfDs like there are bad articles. We should also have some list of PRODs which can have the same results as an AfD, but without the consensus. StrayBolt (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Erasing entries on the ARS list

• The erasure of entries continues. I posted a message on User:Dlthewave's talk page. The editor has erased entries from several ARS members in the past weeks. My entry was erased today with an edit summary accusing me of canvassing. The editor's actions have been disruptive. If the editor believes there is something wrong with an entry, reverting is the least-collegial method available. This constant disruption steals time from the actual work of building an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. It is not acceptable to erase someone's post like that. Dream Focus 04:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. User:Dlthewave's conduct is disruptive to the project. If this pattern continues I promise I will personally take it to WP:ANI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I, too, would suggest not doing that. It would be better to take concerns to talk, instead. There is a real need to lower the degree of animosity around here. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree, we should lower the animosity here. Stop people from coming to a project they don't contribute to and making false accusations constantly. Dream Focus 17:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for lowering the animosity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• We can all try to be Kinder and gentler. However, that is a Two way street, and presumes that the disruption stops. If and when it continues, it needs to be called out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)