The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. It's clear that further discussion will serve no purpose other than create additional friction between both "camps", and that there isn't going to be consensus regarding the list itself. Given the swiftly increasing level of rethoric, this discussion is best closed before it devolves into an all-out "inclusionist vs. deletionist" battle royale. If there is something productive to be done around the controversy surrounding the ARS, it has to be done with wider community participation than an MfD of a process page can muster. — Coren (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list[edit]

Previous MfDs for this content:
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This project page is being used for canvassing. Including stealth canvassing without any notification (e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes which was listed as Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list despite being asked to provide the notices [1][2][3].). To my comment "You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool" was given the response "Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct."[4]. Also "Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements." 15:14 7th Oct Then Bangladeshi political families was listed. 15:18 7 Oct. No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: [5].

Editors on this list turn up at AfDs and vote keep, whilst sometimes severely misunderstanding the topic: [6][7] evidently confusing Lagrange with Bruno Jobard the actual creator of Lagrangian-Eulerian advection. Same article was beefed up with peripherally connected and irrelevant material [8]: "conceptual breakdown" is a summary of three other terms, providing no specific insight into Lagrangian-Eulerian advection or their relationship to it, the image is of a different method with clear OR as a caption: "visulation of massive bodies of water vapour undergoing advection in the earth's troposphere. This visulation was created using a Lagrangian approach - using a hybrid Lagrangian–Eulerian technique would have been one way to achieve greater detail."

The list regulars use contradictory arguments in different places: AFD is a vote count: [9], AfD isn't a vote count: [10]. Regulars have an unhealthy obsession characterizing those who vote delete as evil and menacing, including filling their userspaces with blogs about it: i.e User:Dream_Focus.

Some ARS members have tried to argue that the list is available for everyone, but the reality is that the "Rescue list" is aimed towards inclusionists (as is self evident from the name) for AfD keep votes. It is used specifically to let other inclusionists know about AfDs to pile on and as such it is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known that your list is followed by extreme inclusionists (i.e 98% keep votes etc). If the list is being used for notification of AfDs and not improving of articles, and if editors in the deletionist spectrum don't follow what's posted here, as you point out, then it's clear that posting here gets you inclusionists at AfDs voting keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should the video game deletion project be deleted because it is followed by "extreme deletionists", or the simpson project be deleted because it is followed by "extreme inclusionists"? Which is the case with both projects.
Diego brings up some excellent points: "canvassing requires targeted communication aimed to editors given their known stated point of view or opinion". A quick glimpse at the ARS project shows that many people who do not support inclusion are extremely active in the ARS. This list up for deletion today is open to anyone to add a neutral article too, and too contribute too.
Instead of deleting a community you don't care for IRWolfie, why not become part of the community instead? Isn't that what wikipedia and the thousands of other wikiprojects all about?
If you put the video game deletion project page up for deletion you would be mocked and chastized for disruption, yet doing the same here is okay? Spoildead (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very interesting that you've made 100 edits, had an account for less than a month, never edited anything related to the simpsons or games, but you are aware of their leanings and appear to demonstrate some knowledge of the community. If any project has a page which is used for disruptive purposes there is a strong likelihood that that page will be put up for MfD too. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The video game wikiproject list is used in the exact same manner as this one - I expect to see your nomination of it shortly. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -- Deletion is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed none of the specific concerns I have raised. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to deny that there are some legitimate concerns here and that ARS can used in harmful ways at times, but I simply don't believe that flat out deleting the list is the solution. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
looks like yet another speedy keep Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list Spoildead (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so do the thousand of other wikiprojects that have deletion sorting lists canvas and game the system also? What makes them any different except that ARS focuses on all of wikipedia and these projects focus on a specific part of wikipedia? Spoildead (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that comparison. Deletion sorting is not an attempt to keep articles. Your project, on the other hand, marks situations as resolved if the article is kept. That obviously leads me to believe that you are being inclusionists. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting is an attempt to sort articles that are up for deletion. This page does exactly the same. So it is perfectly fine to have List of starships in Stargate listed on the Stargate Deletion sorting page, but it is not okay to list the exact same article on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list?
The ARS is an attempt to fix articles, but bad articles that have no encyclopedic value should be deleted. That is the same intention of all wikiprojects.
If you want to delete this page for purely philosphical reasons (inclusionists), state that, but it is disingenious to claim that this page is any different than any other wikiproject except for its larger scope. Spoildead (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is incredibly telling that the page's coding calls "resolved" ="keep" (in friendly green) while "deleted" = "delete" (in nasty red) and not a neutral "resolved: keep" / "resolved: delete".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If red is a nasty colour, why do you use it in your signature and username? Warden (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For reference (for others), here are the two closure tags: When they get deleted: , when they are kept: keep notice. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The debate about the styling and terminology of the project should be held at the project's talk page, not at deletion discussions. If your grudges are against the expressions and workings of the ARS, then why aren't you participating as active members of the project, so that it better addresses your concerns? If those editors that dislike the current results of the rescue list are not willing to work hard, following the rescue list and participate in the listed discussions, by what right do they complain that it doesn't work to their liking? Diego (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is relevant to this discussion in that it demonstrates that the project does have an inclusionist leaning. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other Wikiprojects have green checks and red X to show if articles they follow were kept or deleted. Its the common sense thing to do. It doesn't really prove anything. When an article is deleted it becomes a red link, and if its still there its a blue link. Does this show any inclusionist tendency? The articles that are kept have a nicer looking blue link, while those deleted are an unpleasant red one. Dream Focus 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That obviously leads me to believe that you are being inclusionists. Is that intended as an insult? I'm more of an eventualist myself, but last time I checked being inclusionist was not against policy. Those who complaint of the percentage of inclusionism in the ARS should join the project themselves to tip the balance; that would be much more productive and less POINTy than flawed deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not intended as an insult. It is the impression that I, someone who did not previously have much contact with ARS, have gotten of the group. I wouldn't be surprised if other people reach the same conclusion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that some editors come into a discussion, initially !vote one way, then change the !vote. It makes them appear as if they have truly contemplated and thought through the discussion, when their intention was to switch votes all along. interesting.Spoildead (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC) sorry thanks fluff. :) Spoildead (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spoildead, I see that you're a relatively new editor, so I suspect some of our community norms are new to you. It might be useful for you to take a look at WP:AGF and WP:WIAPA before you carry on in this discussio. Editors on Wikipedia are expected to assume good faith of others and avoid attacking others. That would include an expectation that until evidence is provided otherwise, you not imply that others in this discussion have intentions other than honest discussion - and yes, what you said was very clearly intended to imply that, or you wouldn't have mentioned it in reply to AutomaticStrikeout, here. If you (or others) cannot or will not provide evidence for such a thing in the appropriate venue (which would usually be an admin noticeboard, not an MfD), it's considered a personal attack to impugn the motives of someone else. This is not to say that you can't argue, even strenuously, for your position here, but you cannot do it by attacking others. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far the only editors who have thrown out labels (inclusionist, mergists, deletionists, rabid inclusionists, stealth canvassing) are those who have voted to delete this project. Is the project's existence the source of disruption or the editors who don't want to work together to make the project better, and instead insist the project be deleted? Spoildead (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed at the other deletion discussion how that argument of yours is committing a fallacy. Yet you didn't answer there, and now are here stating the same faulty argument. Is it because you don't look over answers to your comments, or because you don't care committing logical fallacies in your arguments? Diego (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but "nearly all" Wikiprojects do other things as well, and "nearly all" Wikiprojects aren't at ANI over and over again for the numerous bad practices I outlined above. I've never bought into this "WikiProjects can do whatever they want" argument", especially when it's some place like ARS that doesn't have the full compliment of Wikiproject qualities and is at ANI so often. Frankly, I'm not 100% sure that ARS should even be designated a Wikiproject pbp 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by The MfD is supposed to be used for maintenance only. This proposed deletion is for changing a policy, not maintaining the structure of Wikipedia. There is no policy requiring the existence of the rescue list. This isn't a project with a set scope like other projects and the list isn't in deletion sorting; rather the act of putting an article for deletion or prodding it makes it become "in scope". The list is being used disruptively, and that's something which hasn't been addressed despite it being pointed out numerous times over the last few months (attempts to try and deal with the problems have resulted in being rebuffed). Saying that it's not an intrinsic property of the list (as others have tried to argue) doesn't mean that it's not being used disruptively. If something is being used disruptively, where the bad outweighs the good, it's a good time to get rid of it. I did even try and list something here before earlier on, (in a situation where I voted merge, but hoped it could be improved through good research) but was sorely disappointed when the ARS members just turned up to vote with minimal improvement (and an ARS member turned up and did a NAC keep to boot). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're in the business of notifying people, go ahead and notify all the people who participated in last week's TfD on Template:Rescue list as well... pbp 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you wolfie for the great suggestion, you or anyone else is welcome too. :) Spoildead (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The set of editors who have participated at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list is almost certainly biased in favor of retention. It should be obvious that contact only that group constitutes impermissible canvasing. Your inclusion in your messages of a selected part of the canvasing rules shows you knew in advanced that your canvasing would be controversial; further your response above, inviting someone else to contact more people to essentially counteract your canvasing, shows you knew what you were doing was biased canvasing. Monty845 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample notification: [12] in which I post WP:Canvassing policy:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).
In which I quote specific WP:Canvassing policy.
On the other hand, your opinion is empty of any policy backing up your assertions. Therefore I would appreciate you striking these comments as they have no basis in WP:Canvassing rules.
Also please don't template editors for strictly following wikipedia rules.[13] The great thing about wikipedia, is if someone doesn't like the way the rules are written, they can get consensus to change them.
thank you.Spoildead (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You notified everyone at a previous discussion where there was an overwhelming majority in favor of keeping. That is not an unbiased notification, and it was done with a clear intent to canvas. The key language is However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. IF the previous debate had many opinions on both sides, then a neutral notification would be fine, but that is not the case here. Monty845 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89 wrote on my talk page:
I agree with Monty here. You've got to either expand the people you're notifying, or it IS canvassing. I've given you lists of people to notify. Please notify them. pbp 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, lets please keep this discussion here.
Second, I have two opinions about canvassing which are not backed up with any policy.
No where are editors on WP:Canvassing told to notify editors on slightly similar templates that are up for deletion, as Purplebackpack89 asks me to do on Template:Rescue list. I notified editors on the first deletion discussion, as per the rules demand.Spoildead (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to game the system, your saying that the spirit of WP:CANVASS does not matter because you followed some language there, which at best is discussion actions that might be appropriate. You seem pretty good at this for someone who started editing a month ago and had only 15 edits prior to today... Have you ever edited under another username? Monty845 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Monty: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: ...if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own). This is a specific rule, specific to exactly what I did, as opposed to your general quote which you are interpreting loosely to apply to what I did, with a lot of personal opinion. I followed that rule and now you are attacking me for following that rule. No rule exists that you cannot contact the snowball editors in a previous snowball keep deletion discussion. A rule does exist that you can contact editors in a previous deletion discussion. Spoildead (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To indulge in some similar WP:Wikilawyering, I could point out that was not an article deletion discussion, and so your exact rule doesn't apply. Its actually besides the point though, the spirit of WP:CANVASS is that you should not try to bring in editors to a discussion who you have particular reason in advance to believe will agree with you. If it had been 50/50 at the previous discussion, go for it. 70/30 a bit sketchy, but ok. More then 10:1 in your favor is canvassing, any way you cut it. Monty845 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the controversial nature of the MfD, a neutral message to a central location like the village pump or AN might be desirable. To ensure a representative consensus is reached. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You decided to call your rebuttal page "Uncivil"? Your vote is nothing other than mudslinging at me and others and contains no actual rebuttal of the arguments. You mentioned me at ANI, but didn't notify me, I would not even have noticed the ANI except I comment there regularly. Where have you addressed what occurred at Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, including the addition of clear OR by ARS members, and the comments by ARS members who didn't have a clue what the topic was about? You have not addressed the "transparent" notifications, which often don't include notifications to the AfD. (and if you had of looked you would have seen that I had zero (or next to zero as far as I am aware) interaction with ARS members for the three weeks before you mentioned me at ANI without notification, a strange definition of "ratcheting things up") IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I called the rebuttal draft "uncivil" because I am tired of your uncivil conduct. I've left things alone; I didn't want to stir all this up. You wouldn't have brought this MfD if you respected the ANI close. Note, I address Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection in the draft rebuttal- WHERE EVEN YOU VOTED TO KEEP. What are you railing against? There's no way the ARS changed the outcome of that discussion in some improper way.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show a diff of me being uncivil or retract your allegation. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Unless I'm missing something, when a discussion is closed as "no consensus", it's perfectly acceptable to start a discussion on the same, or a similar topic, at any time, and it's certainly acceptable to revisit a topic six months after the most recent discussion. Otherwise, it appears that the rest of your thread appears to be an assault on me, Wolfie, and the RfC thread he/we tinkered around with but ultimately never released, rather than a point-by-point assertion of his or my comments. You urge us to look through the ARS archives... Done. What I've found is upwards of 70% of articles tagged for rescue are kept (with the happy green check vs. the sad red X if they're deleted, that's POV-y), whereas upwards of 70% of articles not tagged for rescue are deleted. That seems more than anomalous pbp 21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
last thing: Its anomalous because its not RANDOM -- we work on things we think merit rescue. I am tired of your assault on ARS. TIRED BEYOND BELIEF. But it doesn't matter, I'll still work to save your shitty stub you created at Chili burger because I believe in knowledge.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting thing to look at would be how many include notification of the AfD with the rescue list template, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the regular gang is all arriving, User_talk:AndyTheGrump#ARS_RFC.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a reasoned response to my comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that Andy voted keep in the last MfD and that it was Spoildead who notified him this time? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: For reasons stated above, and that this along with the template deletion discussion appears to be a coordinated effort to nullify or even dissolve the ARS WikiProject in general, despite it clearly not meeting the criteria for deletion. And people accuse ARS of creating drama? Seriously, you guys ... Faustus37 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AB-SO-LUTELY. I don't comment on everything that makes it to ARS. My "Keep" vote on any given AfD isn't necessarily an ARS nomination either. I personally prefer to keep ARS nominations to AfDs ranging from questionable (Diary of a Bad Man) to outright ridiculous (Linda Tripp). It's all fine and good to say ARS shouldn't canvass, but if you take away the Rescue List and Rescue Template, you leave ARS with no other alternative. How convenient ... Faustus37 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, from your voting statistics you voted keep 98.1% of the time out of the last 250 AfDs. Warden 58.8% [17], Faustus37 [18] 54.8%. These numbers are very much above the actual keep/merge/delete ratios of typical articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? [19] It says that most of the time I said keep, the article was kept. 133 times I said keep it ended in Keep(Keep and speedy keep combined here), 30 times it ended in delete, and 36 times no consensus. So most of the time people agree with me. I go looking for articles to improve and thus keep, while others seem to go around spending most of their time finding things to try to delete. I have nominated articles for deletion before then when I come across an obvious case of something deserving it. [20] And the other two editors being mentioned makes no sense at all. How does voting keep 58.8 or 54.8 percent of the time prove your case? Dream Focus 00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does voting more than 50% of the time prove my case? Because the actual number of articles kept is far below 50%: at around 20%. ARS members are all anomalistically high because they can vote stack AfDs through the rescue list. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said, wouldn't it also be true one could err too far the other way? Care to back that up with hard data? Otherwise we're just throwing numbers at each other. Faustus37 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines, how many times do you look at an AfD and decline to comment on it at all? I do that, a lot. Perhaps one chooses to comment only in the AfDs one feels should be Keeps (or Deletes, whatever), but as far as the rest go one is content to let the chips fall as they may. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration as well? Ultimately these toolserver stats don't mean a heck of a lot. Faustus37 (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop throwing statistics as if they had any meaning? Diego (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone else saw the title of this discussion and thought it read as 2nd round? Diego (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a battleground. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" didn't look too deep into it, since it was ...". That's the issue. You turned up and voted keep without understanding the issues. I also voted keep because I could recognise the significant coverage in reliable sources, indicative of notability (without any other relevant issues). You voted keep whilst completely misunderstanding the issues and getting the inventor wrong by several centuries. Other ARS members hindered the article by adding clear original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: [21].
Forum shopping? Which forum have I proposed anything at previously? You are referring to different people, bringing issues up. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MULTI. Diego (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I have only started a thread in one location; i.e this one. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but MULTI suggests that fragmented discussions should be held at the same place and links used to use links to the previous discussion, not new discussions started for what's essentially the same topic that was already ongoing at the TfD. Diego (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This MfD was started since fluffernutter said in the template discussion that it was the proper way to proceed. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to see from your voting statistics that these events aren't representative. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do these voting statistics record how many AFDs I did not participate in at all? You aren't making any sense here. Dream Focus 00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to situations where articles are listed and ARS members don't turn up to vote keep whilst being listed. It is not the usual, and doesn't really indicate that you didn't decide to not vote, since noone expressed anything. Are you suggesting that you ignore AfDs because you can't vote keep? Barack Obama speech to Clinton Global Initiative, 2012 has only been listed for about one day. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you gone through all the AFDs listed and counted how many times I do or do not appear? As I said, if I can't be 100% certain one way or the other, I don't participate. Dream Focus 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was using toolserver. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the places you did turn up that is. Places you didn't turn up are irrelevant since there is no evidence for it, and you (and anyone) can make it up after the fact IRWolfie- (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to make a bot to go through every AFD the ARS was informed about, and then search for my name I suppose. Anyway, I assure you, I don't participate in every single thing in the Article Rescue list, nor does anyone else. And I believe a lot of us participate in AFDs which aren't tagged for help in the Rescue Squadron, there other Wikiprojects out there that list things that interest us. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga I participate in things I can be sure of, and if something is going to be deleted I regularly transwiki its entire history to the Manga wikia I created for that purpose. Do you believe it is a canvassing tool if some regular editors go through things tagged in other Wikiproject and vote regularly on things? This Wikiproject acts the same as others. Dream Focus 01:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a particularly sloppy miscue on my part which has since been addressed and closed at ANI. ARS and its tools aren't the culprit here. That mess stems primarily from me being an idiot. Nothing more. Faustus37 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people who show up for any AFD there is don't edit the article. Wikiprojects keep list of active AFDs all the time, and their members go there and participate as they see fit. I do use my highbeam account and Google news archive search to look for sources I read through and do add to articles at times, but in this case, the work had already been done, I having nothing to add. Note that this article was listed in the Article Rescue list tagged for nominated for deletion at November 22nd, and it was until December 4th I participate, I not sure if it was or was not notable before, so just checking back on it, and stating that Warden's improvements did prove it was. No one rushed over there to say "keep" just because help was asked for. Dream Focus 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ARS discussion of that listing at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Albannach shows that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albannach is completely above board. Its been relisted *three* times at AfD with no one seeming to care much. Even ARS has been lukewarm on it, and the lack of commenters shows that most everyone else is feeling the same. If we're some great canvassing operation, why do just a few folks dribble in weeks after this AfD should have been closed? We suck at canvassing, if that's our goal. Furthermore, this cherry-picking of random listings is not rational evidence of inappropriate behavior by the project. Why don't you cherry pick discussions like Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list/Archive_10#Study_for_a_Caricature_.28Leonardo.2C_Milan.29 where we *approved* of deletion after research? Or Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list/Archive_4#Patrick_Ruffini which was rescued during the last RFC, not that anybody noticed. Indeed, one can list scores of articles we rescued that few would quibble with, including best cases where the nominator herself is convinced.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been too busy in recent days to pay any attention to the rescue list. My edits to Albannach were due to the discussion at ANI, not the rescue list. ANI is far more noticeable on my watchlist due to hyped-up section titles like Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again. I noticed in that case that User:IRWolfie- made hostile comments about me without notifying me directly, as is customary and courteous for discussions at ANI. Per WP:POT, his complaints about other editors should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt. The bottom line in this case is that I did significant research on the topic in question and added multiple citations to the article. Warden (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warden, you are aware that the thread was closed at the same time as I commented. So why would I have notified you about a closed thread? IRWolfie- (talk)
  • Yes, "specific rationale" which ARS members are free to accept ... or not. Some rationales are better than others. Exactly none of us signed a blood oath to protect articles at all costs. We're not the Borg, y'all. Personally I've taken a pass on several ARS nominations in the recent past. Note ARS doesn't come to the aid of every AfD, or even to most of them. At this very moment there are literally hundreds of active AfD conversations. ARS has open cases on a grand total of TWO of them, one of which being an attempt to delete our template I might add. That's a very significant point IMHO. Faustus37 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM: Barack Obama speech to Clinton Global Initiative, 2012 has been on the ARS list for well over 24 hours now. Note the deafening indifference from our members ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're arguing that the problems are only of form and not substance? That if it shared the Delsort format all this prosecution would go away? That's tempting; maybe we should just move the rescue list to delsort to make all drama disappear (ha!). FYI the instructions you mention were included specifically because someone complained that the ARS was tagging articles for unclear reasons. If you don't like the wording, just go ahead and propose a change at the project's talk page. The project page already went through a thorough redesign trying to address the concerns about inclusionist imaginary that you and others raised at the RfC; but now instead of proposing more changes to fix the remaining concerns, you're wielding against the project the bits that nobody complained about? Diego (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All making it a simple delsort would do is enable the type of drive-by tagging that the rescue tag allowed, with the added problem of drawing attention to the AfD. That would just make this even more likely to be used for canvassing instead of improving articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better to keep 10 substandard articles than to delete one good one. Yes, crap exists, but it's not like we're gonna crash the Internet with it. Faustus37 (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, the issue is that this idealized example isn't the actual situation with this list. More often than not the ARS members turn up to the AfD whilst doing minimal work on the articles, at times adding OR to beef it up (contrasting with say Silver Seren who typically makes great improvements), they sometimes don't notify anyone that it hasn't been listed, and then they also skew the discussion with sometimes weak arguments. They also sometimes turn up and NAC the AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that some of that has happened. But the proposed solution is like eliminating AN/ANI just because some people drama-monger there. There is a purpose for article rescue, and if the administrator corps can't sort out policy-based deletion arguments, then it's really on their collective shoulders, not the hyper-inclusionists'. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pointy Nom? I haven't taken part in any previous RfC. Look at the merits of the case rather than dismissing it out of hand. There are legitimate issues here which I did try to resolve through the ARS, but these efforts were rebuffed. (I hope the closer takes into account the large number of ARS members turning up to vote keep and accuse those of disagreeing of having a grudge or being POINTy while ignoring the issues). I am critical of the ARS, specifically this list, or I would not have put it up for MfD (do you expect someone who is not critical of what is going on with the list to put it up for MfD?). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What previous steps did you take to address your concerts through the ARS? I didn't see you participating at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron nor Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list, and I have both pages in my watchlist. Diego (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_57#What.27s_the_point_in_the_list., Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_57#Question. I did include a diff of one of these in my MfD Nomination ... IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should be nominating things because they meet the deletion criteria, not because you have a problem with the way a wikiproject operates. You may not have taken part in the previous Mfd or Rfc, but I'm reasonably sure you're aware of them. If not, I will happily bring you up to speed: Community consensus after a ridiculous number of comments was that the ARS isn't canvassing inappropriately. Your WP:POINT seems to be that you disagree.  The Steve  13:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you are misrepresenting the RfC. The last RFC said: "There certainly is consensus that some canvassing does happen through ARS, those who oppose the stipulation accept it happens and those who support it concede that it happens less frequently than it used to." That RFC happened 5 months ago, the issue is with this Rescue List (specifically), and the subsequent increase in inappropriate canvassing that has occurred because of this rescue list post-RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is utterly unproven, IRWolfie-, and we've demolished every example you've randomly tried to put out there so far. You said you were going to "take a month" and amass a huge amount of evidence of this alleged behavior and you came up with nothing! Quote: "I will take the full month in constructing an RfC, with references back to the original." WHERE IS IT? WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THE PRIOR RFC? Instead, you gave it up. Really, I am completely flummoxed that an editor like you that fights anti-science crazies so well is so willing to abandon research and evidence in favor of emotion in this case. I bet you'd be an admin already if you didn't have outliers like this.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please not characterize me as some sort of fighter. I grew disinterested in doing an RfC because I became disinterested in the issues surrounding the ARS due to time constraints; I moved on to other things. I then happened across the ANI thread where I was mentioned, which linked to a template discussion, where it was suggested that the MfD was the correct way to proceed. I then created that MfD. On creating this thread I am told by multiple ARS members that I have "a grudge", that I'm being "POINTy" etc etc. I tried to resolve the issues some time ago, but the behaviour on the list hasn't changed, instead it got worse. I even gave the list a shot to see what would happen if I listed something which had the potential to be kept rather than merged. Despite your characterizations, Andy (above), voted keep last discussion, yet you characterize him as part of some team; rather than thinking of us as editors highlighting legitimate issues here you group us all together as haters and assume we are doing this because we have grudges. This isn't a grudge, and it's not a battle. I am critical of this list because it is used disruptively. If the list is deleted, I won't be standing around to gloat; I will be back to working on other things in the area I find interesting. I still see use for the ARS, just not with this list; there are other ways to prevent notable topics to be deleted, such as preventive clean ups, or working on deprodded articles. The list would be great if it worked fine, but it doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cheap and insulting shot at me. You have exhausted my capacity to assume good faith with your motives and thus I will not participate further. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your RFC evidence?--Milowent • hasspoken 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that keep votes from ardent deletionists like Tarc that say "damn you for making me semi-agree with these knuckleheads" are not ARS members. Tarc voting to keep something is like DGG voting to delete. Its very significant and noticed.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that pledge if the others do as well. It appears Wolfie will as well.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made exactly three comments on this page, now four I guess, and none of them have been particularly biting. Not sure why you are picking on me. :( --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also address an issue stated by pbp: "A perusal through the ARS' archives will note that articles tagged with the rescue tag are very disproportionally kept in comparison to the average AfD outcome." That does not indicate a problem with the list, it could just as easily mean that articles listed for rescue are done appropriately - i.e., they are being listed because the editor doing so is correct that there are legitimate reasons to keep the listed article, and that is being reflected in the AfD results. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering how have you seen "said list in action"? Because someone just listed your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Brien (comedian), where you erroneously overlooked a feature on the subject in Forbes? If your nomination was correct that there was no mainstream coverage of the individual, it may not have gotten listed. I personally care deeply about the integrity and sourcing of content.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be curious to see the percentages on this point. How many AFDs per day do we get, and of those how many end up at ARS? And of that number, how many are ultimately kept? And of THOSE articles, how many were kept dubiously? That is to say, how many were kept despite insufficient sources, critical flaws, etc, but only because a bunch of ARS members rolled in and said "Keep because reasons." If Admins are closing AFDs where notability has not been demonstrated simply because a bunch of people said keep, then the flaw is not in ARS but in the admin corps. And that means we need more admins with the stones to close against the majority - a problem outside the scope of this MFD. Besides, the stated intent of this list (and, indeed, the project) is to get articles that should be kept and make sure they do indeed get kept. So of those hundred-odd AFDs each day, only a couple (if that) go to ARS. Those are the borderline cases, where there's a reasonable argument that the subject is notable or that the article could be kept with work, etc. I want to see empirical data - of these articles tagged for rescue, how many are indeed rescued properly (with sources, notability, etc)? If this is a problem, let's show how big a problem it is - or is not. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is a good deal more general than that. If administrators should be very willing to close against the majority, and cases of administrators closing deletion discussions based on dubious arguments are only the fault of the admin corps, then why do we have a rule against canvassing at all? Canvassing is always going to be a problem as long as closing administrators take the number of participants on each side into account at all, and an administrator who never took this into account would be making bad decisions based on supervoting.
The cases of improper influence by the ARS on deletion discussions are a good deal more complex than "a bunch of people said keep". The best illustration I know of is this AfD. Had the ARS not got involved that discussion would have been a straightforward delete (every Keep !voter but one is a member of the ARS, and the first ARS member to comment tagged the article for rescue). Instead, though, a large number of sources were added to the article and the AfD in an attempt to demonstrate notability. They didn't actually demonstrate notability, for various reasons, and fortunately the AfD got more attention than usual from non-ARS people and the article was eventually deleted. However the closing administrator then had to close quite a complex debate, and had the debate not attracted more than usual attention from outside the ARS I think there is a good chance it would have been closed as Keep or No Consensus.
A statistical analysis of the list of the type you suggest would be quite difficult. It isn't going to be straightforward to decide if an individual AfD closure was proper or not, and if the analysis relies on the opinion of a single person then it isn't worth much. Hut 8.5 14:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a rule about canvassing so that the loudest voice does not win a debate. And the problem runs both ways - you just said that the article ended up being deleted because "fortunately the AfD got more attention than usual from non-ARS people"... and isn't that the exact same problem in reverse? That article is an obvious delete - but it's also from last year. More importantly, it predates WP:RFC/ARS. Much has changed since the days of that AFD - including the structure and use of the page under discussion here.
My point about the statistics is that we can't argue that this page is frequently used for canvassing unless we see how often it is used overall, and then judge from that list how many incidents of abuse occurred. I haven't worked with the ARS since the Bush Administration, so someone help me - what stops non-ARS members from watching this list and showing up to the listed AFDs and voting "Delete per nom"? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But that rarely happens, isn't the purpose of the list, and if it did happen it wouldn't make the situation any better - every debate listed on it would turn into a massive punch-up between inclusionists and deletionists. I had a look for a more recent example of problematic influence on a deletion discussion, and I quickly found this one from three months ago. The article subject is a dead dog or pig found in a river which generated a brief spurt of coverage in newspapers in July. The nomination was based on WP:NOTNEWS and argued that the subject has no lasting significance. After the debate was included on the list, ARS members turned up, dumped a load of sources into the article and debate, and argued that since the topic met the GNG the article should be kept. This is basically irrelevant to the nomination, as all the sources provided were published over a two day period and certainly don't refute the idea that the article subject has no lasting significance. The debate was closed as no consensus, with the closing admin reasoning that it wasn't their place to make judgements about the quality of the sources. Hut 8.5 15:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite clear that in the East River Monster discussion the content would be kept, without prejudice a future merge discussion. Note that some ARS commenters said merger was a possible option. And at least one of the delete votes also came from an editor alerted by its presence on the rescue list (not uncommon at all, as a number of "deletionists" police the list and chose not to opine.) Otherwise, the nomination only appeared to draw one clear delete vote on its own, and one "weak delete". And of course you are just trying to cherry pick, you don't pick things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Good to Be True (1936 song) where the nominator withdraws the nomination and thanks ARS members.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comments break down as follows: four editors wanted the page deleted, two wanted it merged (using very similar reasoning to the delete people), and seven wanted it kept. Five of those seven were members of the ARS (and only one mentioned merging, saying it was the "minimum" acceptable outcome), so the outcome was largely determined by the ARS. The arguments for keeping the article by and large did not address the argument for deletion - that some topic passed the GNG does not mean it should be included and does not mean it has any lasting significance. Again if this list is serving to draw in both inclusionists and deletionists then it is effectively making AfD a battleground. I'm not saying the ARS do not do any good work, I'm saying there are serious problems with some of the work that they do and that the existence of this list is a major cause of that. Hut 8.5 16:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One AfD does not make a "serious problem," even if one accepts your summary. The fact that the line of argument you thought was dispositive was not addressed fully is not any editors fault. Also, there's no evidence that the outcome of the AfD would have been any different if not listed. (See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thetis Lake monster (kept, not listed at ARS)). ARS draws attention to borderline articles sometimes (which is why they get listed, because rescue may be possible), which are going to be the source of some controversy no matter what. But correlation is not causation.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)So you're saying that there's a problem so serious that it requires deleting the list, but that it's impossible to prove that this is a serious problem? Diego (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a statistical analysis of the type Ultraexactzz was suggesting would be difficult to do, and if it was done then the result would not be very objective. Milowent: I'm not basing my entire argument on that one AfD, I'm using it as an illustrative example for the kinds of problems I'm discussing. I do think we can conclude that the result was likely to have been different if the ARS hadn't been involved, and as I've already explained I don't think their involvement influenced the discussion positively. And the other AfD you cite is not comparable, as it is four years old and the "monster" in question was apparently still getting coverage forty years after the event. Hut 8.5 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article Rescue Squadron and this list serve a useful purpose when listing articles worthy of rescue. Some ARS members need to learn that not everything can be rescued, and some deletionists need to learn not to nominate for deletion articles that shouldn't be deleted. Deleting this list would be a moral victory for the deletionists, but possibly a pyrrhic victory as this list is a way to channel new inclusionists towards articles worthy of rescue. If we delete this list it might become more difficult for new editors of an inclusionist nature to learn when to try a rescue and when not to bother. It also serves as a useful backstop for articles that should be rescued but for which we don't have a topic based wikiproject. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some ARS members need to learn that not everything can be rescued, and some deletionists need to learn not to nominate for deletion articles that shouldn't be deleted. This and one thousand times this. This is not a problem of canvassing; since everyone is able to follow the list and participate in the discussions. It's a problem of people failing to follow consensus building, which is a much more core policy than CANVASS. And there are two parties to any battleground; putting all blame unto the ARS seems radically unfair.
Maybe the problem is deeper than it looks, and we should be reviewing the whole dynamics of AfD instead of just this list? There's people all over the place complaining that AfD has lots of random outcomes, supervotes and discussions lingering forever. Instead of devoting so much effort to brawl around our little corner perhaps it's time to expand our views and call for a redesign of the whole keep/delete process. For a start, I've always felt that a feature for soft deletion, where safe but non-notable content that is sent to deletion can be accessed through page history instead of redlinked, would be a great asset for not worrying about unfair deletions in the gray area in which the ARS specializes. Why are we talking in length about the Rescue list when the room is cramped with a herd of enormous elephants? Diego (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-answer - Actually this is pretty much what is happening here. Big open discussion about AfD and newly created articles. Diego (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expect nothing. Hence I am never disappointed. That's my philosophy. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC concluded it was not proven to be frequently inappropriately used. And its not a "theoretical positive", there's no question the ARS has done lots of great work, one of the only groups on the project that has gotten significant press attention for their work. What's theoretical and not proven is whether the claimed negatives outweigh the claimed positives. Personally I think deletion would cause greater harm for a few reasons: (1) ARS often serves to cushion a blow for a frustrated editor -- they know we like to protect content, but if we tell them something doesn't merit an article with sympathy, its good editor relations. The new page patrol does good work, but they create a lot of pissed off uneducated newbies too. I wouldn't be on the "most articles created" list now if ARS hadn't saved me from being run off. (2) ARS is transparent. Without it, its activities are going to be driven underground, because there will always be editors who believe in the goals of rescuing content at AfD as preferable to deletion, when possible.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a few articles in my day. Just about any Idaho-related political or geographical article you care to name has my footprint on it. I've had a fair number of articles deleted on me as well. Sure, like everything else the tools are occasionally misused. But so is AfD in general. Witness such zingers as AfDs for Linda Tripp and Gavrilo Princip. One side needs to keep the other in check. Keep ARS intact. I'll even go so far as to say I'd support the creation of an "Article Deletion Squadron." Hell, I'll help you guys set up. Faustus37 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure its not your intent to imply that without the ARS and their rescuelist that Princip and Tripp would have been deleted ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
And how is it those who choose of their own free will and accord to vote "Keep" discredit "legitimate deletion discussions"? ARS doesn't "recruit" in any sense. That's a stupid thing to say. As much as it is to suggest homosexuals "recruit" others to their ranks. I can't speak for other ARS members, but I can sure say I'm here because I feel passionately about this cause, not because someone told me to join. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 06:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means to recruit them to vote at specific AfDs, not to recruit them to join the ARS pbp 06:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no such thing. As far as ARS nominations of AfDs go, ARS members are free to take them or leave them. They often choose the latter. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Faustus- Purplebackpack was clarifying what I meant. The ARS mobilizes editors to vote 'keep' at deletion discussions, editors who would not normally be involved. The converse would be the "Delete Squadron," which would equally be wrong for canvassing reasons. Also, please be a little more civil with your responses. Instead of calling something a "stupid thing to say," explain what you disagree with and why without resorting to unnecessary attacks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing statements is not the same thing as criticizing people. An ad hominem attack was neither implied nor intended. Apologies if you felt otherwise. In any event, I believe I was very clear in what I said. The rebuttal is that ARS informs, not recruits. No one is FORCED to do ANYTHING. Either defend your point or move on.
I don't buy this canvassing crap anyway. I just read WP:CANVAS. Not many people read ARS to begin with (i.e. limited posting). A good post explains the facts (i.e. neutral). It may convey the opinion of the poster, but it doesn't say "vote Keep, you guys!" (i.e. nonpartisan). Finally, ARS is a public page, so it's there for the world to see (i.e. transparency). So ... what's the problem here? Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


More