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 keep on the project. No consensus to mark historical. Comments about sending this to RfC are beyond the scope of MfD, and if parties wish to do so, they may do so separate to this closure. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The Article Rescue Squadron has become an isolated, exclusive project, following much the same path to decline as Esperanza before it. Like Esperanza, ARS has a useful purpose on its face. Improving articles up for deletion is a good thing; in fact, I defended the project for that very reason at its last MFD. It is beyond repair because it has little productive use; this project is not necessary for this work to be done. Instead, the project has grown into exactly the thing people feared it would become: a hostile, exclusive group that does little to improve articles. Because of this, I propose its tools (((rescue)), ((ARS/Tagged))) be deleted and the project page be marked historical.

The harm

Its attitude has become poisonous, increasingly portraying "deletionists" (with various euphemisms and an increasing scope of what deletionist means) as enemies of the project. Any suggestion that this project is being misused or isn't accomplishing anything is met with accusations that the speaker is a deletionist or opposed to improving articles at AFD.

Let me offer some examples of the attitude this project has engendered.

Also, watch the response to this MFD. I expect to see some attacks on my person for this nomination, describing me as a "long-time critic" of the project. Watch the comments carefully, and note the tone of defensiveness, as though this project were under attack by outside enemies. Look at (disjointed and disorganized) archives to see how criticism from Fram, or myself, or Uncle G, or Masem, or Randomran has been responded to. This attitude of "They are out to get us and destroy the project, and we must be vigilant and defend against them" is exactly the poisonous attitude this project engenders.

The project's scope has steadily crept outward as well, with various people stating that all aspects of deletion are related to the project.

In wikiprojects editors with certain interests work together to further the goals of the project, this includes discussing all aspects of deletion.
The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.
Ikip is to be commended for recognising that the sheer scale of deletionists efforts against worthy topic areas needs a collective responce, and ideally a change to policy. (Also note the distinction between "ARS members" and everyone else in the edit summary.)

An RFC was suggested to deal with these problems, but a combination of complete hostility from the project and repeated archival of the RFC proposal by involved editors has scuttled it. The arc of Fritzpoll's comments in that proto-RFC are particularly illustrative.

The lack of help

Now, the poisonous attitude and the scope creep are the harm. Conversely, the project just isn't doing any good. I'll let Uncle G's words explain this:

There is, in fact, an identifiable problem with the ARS' structure that I was going to bring up, here. It's exemplified by the recent red cunt hair (AfD discussion) débacle. The problem is that we have "members", who sign up at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members. One doesn't get to be an article rescuer by signing a page in the project namespace. One gets to be an article rescuer by rescuing articles. Nothing more, nothing less.
The RCH discussions are a striking example of what has, in recent months, gone seriously wrong with the ARS. There were two editors there who were real article rescuers, since they worked on the article to rescue it when it was at AFD. I worked on the draft (User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement)) when it was at Deletion Review. The two real article rescuers were LinguistAtLarge and Phil Bridger, both of whom have rescued articles in the past, and both of whom I've worked with on rescues in the past. (Heck, I'm working with LinguistAtLarge, discussing how to improve had had had had had had had had had had had (AfD discussion), now.) Neither of those people are ARS "members". I'm not myself. But we all three did some article rescue. In stark contrast, we had signed-up ARS "members" who contributed nothing to the actual rescue, but rather spent all of their time in the AFD discussions.

We seem to have a growing divergence between being an ARS "member" and being an actual, honest-to-goodness, article rescuer. And this divergence has been spurred on by the attempts of a few to turn the ARS into a battleground.

If this project isn't needed to rescue articles at AFD, what is it needed for?

In conclusion

I really do believe that, conceptually, this project is well-meaning in theory. Unfortunately, it is now well beyond repair. It has become the armed camp that people feared it would become, and now generates little more than policy evangelism and attempts to limit the policy evangelism. The remaining members of the project are hostile to any suggestion that the project has veered off course, to the point where any critic, regardless of editing history, is villified and rebuffed.

I want to see articles rescued. I cannot see this project in its current form doing anything to make that happen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A Man In Black has been temporarily blocked from editing and so may not be able to reply to comments directed at him here. Skomorokh 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

(refactored) A Man In Black, the nominator, has been blocked 9 days for edit warring. His final act of edit warring was putting up this project for deletion, 2 hours after his 3RR violation.[1] This block was the fourth edit war on the project in the past 12 days.

Members of the ARS have to defend themselves because of AMIB's repeated edit wars. If we didn't complain, a template would have been deleted forever (which AMIB deleted unilaterally)[2] and ARS would be an extension of AMIB's nuke and pave essay. As an admin with a history of edit warring[3] and deleting other editors contributions, AMIB creates the crisis, then ironically complain when editors complain about the disruption and annomosity which AMIB is central to causing.

Unlike AMIB, no one on ARS has created an attack page against AMIB, User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon, no one on ARS has blocked AMIB for trying to notify other relevant articles that an article is up for deletion, a block which was overturned and almost universally seen as a bad block.[4]

Interest in an RFC was waning on the ARS talk page. So since AMIB didn't get his way there, and AMIB cannot edit war anymore without violating 3RR and getting blocked for the 13th time, AMIB created yet another crisis, putting this wikiproject up for deletion in hopes of getting his RfC.

Is this the behavior of an admin? Ikip (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples, Ikip. (And the hilarious edit war to make sure you get in the reply above everyone else's comments.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated on your talk page, it is normal for an editor to comment below a nominators comments. Also, you had a 3rr violation earlier today/late yesterday. Lets not make another one. Ikip (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reform - there are problems, however disagree about being beyond repair. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reform them how? I would really like to see a functional project that improves articles for deletion, but I don't see how we can get from here to there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear what your saying. At the moment, the dominant attitude seems to be the problems don't exist. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or often, more worryingly, that any suggestion that they exist is evidence of latent deletionism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My personal concern, which makes taking some of these "criticisms" as valid as they seem one-sided and with no concern over obvious canvassing in support of deletion in rescue templated articles, such as [5] and [6]. If the same people were also taking issue with this kind of stuff. Okay. If the same people were also themselves doing impressive work rescuing articles. Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That this project must exist to counteract the excesses of our opposition, that's exactly the harmful attitude I highlighted in the nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Totally ignoring, excusing, and/or glossing over the excesses of that opposition is what makes such "criticism" hard to take seriously. Here, it just looks like venue shopping. If you can't get what you want on the ARS talk page, you now simultaneously start an MfD of the project while conspiring against one of its most vocal defenders. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Any criticism of the project turns into criticism of the speaker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Only when the criticism is either hypocritical or in bad faith. I appreciate those who act in good faith as I said at User_talk:Fritzpoll#Regarding_this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        IMHO the squadron needs reform, and this would include rules on precisely what notifications are permitted, in addition to appointing coordinators to enforce these rules. I don't consider this to be either hypocritical, or in bad faith. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Reform, no, as with the contest idea, I am totally open to proactive ideas to improve the project. Outright deletion of the project, though? If the idea if because participants don't like criticism or its a poisonous atmosphere, then by that same logic we have justification for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, because certainly that has contentious talk page comments and closed mindedness by some to reform. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There still is no good reason why this Wikiproject should have to go to extraordinary lengths - although we already do - to prevent partisan activities. Any Wikiproject can be notified of discussions. The issue was that those notices need to be neutral, this was never a project issue as much as a user issue that Nom turned into a much bigger deal than it was and did so uncivilly. -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the next stage should be an RfC to consider whether the best option is to appoint coordinators to prevent canvassing, or whether it would be preferable to convert the wikiproject into a process. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. This Wikiproject has been targeted by nom consistently for three months now with one "discussion" after the next. Supposedly with the concern that the project itself engenders a battleground. Ironicly they have created the very battleground they claimed to be trying to prevent. Since their block? Civil discourse and almost no drama on the talkpage - a welcome break. The - OMG! Canvassing - issue? I seem to recall very few incidents, like maybe 5 or 6 and they all could have been handled civilly without nom's assistance and no policing is needed. In deference to these rather pointy allegations the project has gone out of its way to state explicitly that only neutral notifications are allowed. Why on earth should, yet another, prolonged discussion about how Wikipedians should not make mountains out of molehills take place? If notications are neutral or are at least handled civilly if they aren't occur then there's really not an issue. We don't pillory projects because a few people mispost on the talkpages. You mean well but please, let's see this only for what it is. A user issue and a combative admin crying "fire" and "wolf" where neither are. -- Banjeboi 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as historical. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as i can see = A historical process is one which is no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. - How does this apply here in any way whatsoever? -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of something kept multiple times due to overwhelming consensus as project has done considerable impressive work improving content when not faced with and distracted by these frivolous Xfds. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestion that there are problems is "disruptive". Any criticism is "distracting". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating something that has been resoundingly kept multiple times is disruptive. Good faith criticism that can reasonable acted upon is welcome. Beating a dead horse or bad faith criticism that interferes with a project's ability to acheive its stated objective of rescuing articles by those who do not work to improve articles is distracting and hypocritical. I have multiple times now worked to steer discussion on proactive ideas to improve articles as seen at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Contest_2.3F. You seem to be taking disputes with some members and putting it on the whole group, which is not fair to the project as a whole. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who criticizes the project, either its conduct or its nature, must have some other agenda, like "disputes with some members". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not anyone, but you clearly have disputes with some members. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mark as historical~~ I frankly don't trust many of the main participants in this project. Looking over the talk page and this nominatin, AMiB seems to have it right. That canvassing example is really disturbing, and it doesn't look like the participants are willing to hear valid criticisms. AniMate^draw 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really find this rather offensive as one of those main participants. The "canvassing" accusations have been discussed on the admin boards and routinely dimissed. I invite you to review the situation a bit more to see if in actuality is any canvassing on a project level. I see some malformed requests for help but no evidence of the project acting in bad faith or otherwise violating policy. -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - RfC Upon further reflection, I think an RfC to define the scope of this project and its processes is likely the best solution for both real and perceived problems with the ARS, though I still wouldn't be upset if it was marked as historical. AniMate^draw 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - With due respect this would simply prolong the months-long disruption with those who think this Wikiproject should be restricted(!) from being notified of policy discussions in some way. Do you really think anyone would support that all Wikiprojects should never be notified of policy discussions that impact them? I hust don't see it, but if such a discussion were to take place it should be done so at the Wikicouncil, not here. None of ARS's processes are in dispute, no project actions have caused any problems. The issues are confined in number and to a very few editors. Do we really think a Wikiproject that doesn't encourage any poor behaviour should be vilified for what some editors who are affilaited actions? I doubt it. -- Banjeboi 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Performs a useful and valuable function. Artw (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are things that people have sometimes done wrong both in trying to delete, or prevent the deletion, of articles. This does not mean that either purpose is hopelessly compromised, or that those concentrating on either of these purposes are harming Wikipedia. The bias of AfD towards deletion is so great--as long as one can nominate without any attempt at prior investigation it is immensely easier to nominate an article that is at the moment in a bad condition for deletion than to rescue it. Further, most articles nominated for deletion should indeed be deletes,and rescue attempts would be quixotic. It is thus reasonable for people to concentrate their efforts on those that can possibly be improved enough to be saved. since this project facilitates it, it acts to improve Wikipedia and realizes the principle that deletion is only the last resort. The proof of the usefulness of this project is the opposition; it must be doing a considerable amount of good. (smile) DGG (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly the essentially sick attitude that this project has become infected with. "The bias of AfD towards deletion is so great" that this project must exist to counteract it? "The proof of the usefulness of this project is the opposition" because the only reason someone would be unhappy with it is because they are on the other side of some sort of great divide? DGG is an essentially reasonable, moderate editor, and this has affected even him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - that the process is biased towards deletions is correct, and will remain correct as long as 1/it is not required to actually search for sources before nominating an article and 2/ an article can be nominated more than twice. that is is difficult to improve articles on short notice is clear to everyone who has tried to do that. I can maqnage one a day at most--I could nominate 5 or ten times that, even with a little superficial searching. As for the last sentence, correct that to say that the repeated nomination is evidence that it must really be having an effect. If it were actually doing harm, it would have been stopped the first time. The persistence shows it touches a nerve. That I find AMIB, whom I consider a generally reasonable moderate editor, doing this surprised me exceedingly. If the issue is becoming this divisive, perhaps we need to reconsider the whole process--perhaps try a switch to some sort of impartial random jury system, even DGG (talk)
    - If AFD is broken, how is an insular, hostile project going to fix it? Previous MFDs addressed the ideal of this project, which has overwhelming support; this MFD addresses what the project has become, which does not accomplish its ideals. Esperanza was supposed to be a project to promote community in Wikipedians, which few would oppose, but it turned into an exclusive, separate group, hostile to outsiders. I still believe in the idea of a cleanup project that fixes articles up for deletion, but a project devoted to fighting bias (and by extension the biased editors) and rescuing things from the enemy isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please, this really is mythologizing a handful of non-neutral posts this you blew waaay out of porportion. Let's not pretend a cabal exists when it doesn't. ARS has taken on board all constructive criticism even when delivered with piles of bad fiath. I imagine this to continue - the accepting criticism part that is. -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is constantly arguing with others, and recently Ikip started a motion to ban him from the Rescue Squadron. We have in fact improved plenty of articles, and don't just all vote keep. Dream Focus 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that motion was probably not a good idea, neither as a practical matter, nor even in principle. Projects must remain open. If the project continues in that direction, I too will start thinking about closing it. DGG (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be heading down that road again ... pablo_hablo. 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"if you don't like it, then leave. Don't destroy it for the rest of us". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that was the edit summary of Dream Focus's comment above--a view that I hope AMIB understands that I do not share.DGG (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The project originally started out doing solid work at improving articles. It still is, but this hostile attitude needs to go. I recommend that the nominator step back and let them sort themselves out, the interactions between nominator and particular members of this project are part of the cause of this unfortunate mentality. Actions from both sides are painful to watch and will only serve to distract both parties from contributing to articles, and perhaps disengaging from each other may alleviate the symptoms. I also recommend that members of the ARS disengage from nominator as best they can and focus on improving articles. Please try not to incite this situation into yet another inclusion/deletion debate, and take utmost caution to avoid any actions that may lead to such situations. Focusing on improvement, following policy and being civil will demonstrate the project's intentions to contribute to Wikipedia, nothing else. It would be a loss to see this go. DDDtriple3 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only Banjeboi's comment about the "posse mounted against this Wikiproject" is in direct response to me; everything is else from a wide variety of speakers, in response to a wide variety of speakers. It's a Catch-22; you're obsessive and disrupting the project if you stay and highlight the project's essentially combative nature and lack of utility, but if you go away, anything you posted is quickly archived and forgotten. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gross simplification of how A Man In Black is presently seen after months of their combativeness and disruption on this Wikiproject's talkpage. We've been extremely patient with this ongoing battleground mentality. The edit-warring is tiresome, the arguing and wikilawyering unhelpful. In fact some of the prescriptive changes we'd like to work on have been back-burnered because of A Man In Black's disruption. Sadly this MfD is simply the latest in months of tactics that inevitably will take up more community energy to appease their concerns - which again, are rather isolated to a few users not the evil project. Good lord, wouldn't we be much more clever if our sole goal was to keep everything? -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that AMiB has been fighting with a small portion of the ARS community who may or may not represent the whole. Personally, I became so sick of reading the extremely large pages of controversy and trying to get my opinion in (without being heard) that I stopped paying attention and went back to working on saving articles which are able to be saved (and not voting in AfD unless my vote is delete). I'm a deletionist and a member of ARS which I have openly stated many times. I don't come to ARS and look for help (or canvass) to "save" unsavable articles with a vote in AfD. There are people in this project who are doing what the project is allowed to do and it's offensive and asinine to say that everyone in the project is some wide-eyed inclusionist that wants to keep articles despite the best interests of Wikipedia. For the people involved in the diffs you brought up, discuss the problems you have with them personally or even in a RfC in AWAY from ARS. If they're doing something that ARS states is wrong on its project page, then isn't the problem with those people and not the project itself? AMiB brings up some good points which have already been brought up and addressed in the past (see the "What ARS is" and "What ARS isn't") His only conclusion, when a user misunderstands the project and allegedly canvasses at ARS, is to shut down the whole project. I just don't understand the line of thought unless AMiB seriously believes that every single person in the project has the exact same idea about what "saving an article" means. I'm so sick of being called some variation of a super-defensive, wide-eyed inclusionist. If/when anyone comes up with a way to address the problems that users who abuse ARS present, I'll be happy to talk about it. Straight up deletion is asinine. OlYeller^Talktome 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the project will continually attract that kind of fighting. You could ban every single person who has ever talked on that talk page forever and oversight the entire thing, archives and all, and we'd be back in the same place before long. The project is broken to its core. The project's tools, its talk page and templates, are used more for fighting a perceived bias at AFD than for improving articles, and indeed the good work of improving articles at AFD happens in spite of the project, not because of it.

Nobody's arguing that ARS is all wide-eyed inclusionists. Instead, the argument is that it has been co-opted by people who are more interested in fighting about article inclusion and defending Wikipedia from their enemies than doing anything productive, and the response to any criticism of this hostility is more hostility. Canvassing is only a symptom of this; the righteous defense and hostility is the real problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, ARS states what ARS is not on its project page the same way that WP:NOT states what Wikipedia is not. If people are misunderstand what Wikipedia is, do we shut down Wikipedia? OlYeller^Talktome 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. I would be more inclined to believe that the project had some serious issues if there were diffs provided to show that the ((rescue)) tag was added to an unsavable article or there was canvassing for an unsavable article where vote stacking occurred. There's been evidence to show that there are possibly problems with a few members but not much evidence that there's a problem with the project itself. I understand that a project is greatly defined by its members but the way to fix each problem are very different. OlYeller^Talktome 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're demanding proof for a claim I'm not making here. The project is hostile and insular and accomplishes no good that couldn't be done without it. Next to that, little back-and-forths over a bit of canvassing are relatively minor. If Wikipedia as a whole were allowed to become this uncivil and insular and hostile, it would probably be time to shut it down, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for proof because the conclusion is different in each case. If the problem is with people, like you've pointed out, then isn't the answer to address those people? OlYeller^Talktome 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what about people like me? I spend 70% of my time sitting in CSD looking for articles that can be saved and saving them. I'm sure there are plenty of people in ARS who, like me, actually save articles. Before you say that ARS isn't for CSD, I know. My goal in the future is to somehow incorporate savable articles up for speedy deletion into ARS's scope. OlYeller^Talktome 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do people like you get out of this project? You use CSD to catch articles that need immediate help, and many users look through AFD to find things that could use a little love. We already have tools for aggregating all of the articles that need some help or else they'll be deleted. That's what AFD and CSD and such have always been for.

On the other hand, how would you propose that every problematic comment on WT:ARS be dealt with? It's not one instigator, and the culture is one of a persecuted minority, out to protect their own from individual attack or attack as a whole. I use the term "righteous defense" above because this has become a cause of its own, and doesn't really have anything to do with inclusionism or deletionism any more. Those are just handy labels for "us" and "them", and have mostly been replaced with "ARS members" and "ARS critics" anyway. Sometimes the canvassing/notification/llama/whatever was out of bounds, sometimes it was appropriate; what's more important is the project's toxic culture and how these discussions have exposed it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a "toxic culture," it is because of such discussions as these, which have invented rather more than exposed anything. If members were able to spend more time improving articles than having to play games in XfD after XfD against them, much more worthwhile would be accomplished. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem. The only problem is that anyone thinks there's a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a supportive editor of yours recently said it best AMIB,

"Man, you need to just shut your damn yap and stop replying to every accusation :-). Just sayin. talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) OK, I see your point about us/them and I do feel that there are people who get very defensive to perceived hostile outsiders. I don't however, think that it's grounds for shutting down the project.

The reason I believe that this project is warranted, aside from just have a portal like what I watch at CSD, is that some article could use small tweaks during its trial (I can't think of a better word than trial atm). For instance, I could look through every AfD and read every article on my own, do the research to see if the article is savable then attempt to save the article while its deletion is being discussed. What ARS does (or at least should do) is be a place where I can go through AfDs, read the article, decide what I think can be saved then tag it so that others don't have to go through all the articles and AfD and do the same work that I already did. So while I (as a hypothetical ARSer) haven't actually edited the article to save it, I've done work that others won't have to do (reading through AFDs to find savable articles). Otherwise, I can watch the ((rescue)) tag portal to see what articles in AfD are savable. While the person just tags articles may not seem like they're doing any real work to save articles, they are helping by saving time for those who actually make the edits.

Some articles are the most complete they can be and an AfD is simply a discussion on the interpretation of inclusion guidelines while other articles are seemingly broken and brought to AfD when they just need a little work to "save" from deletion. ARS is, in my mind, for signaling to other editors that, "Hey, this article is in AfD and only needs a little work to save. I've saved you some time by reading articles for you so we don't all have to read every article." Besides the fact that not every article in AFD can be changed to save it from deletion, I don't believe that AFD is for cleanup so just the AFD tag on an article doesn't show that it needs a little work in any way. Sorry for the long response. OlYeller^Talktome 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the standard? If you haven't done any research and don't know anything about the topic, how can you know whether it can be improved or not? If you have done the research or do know about the topic, why not just use that research or knowledge to improve the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is how any editor interprets the inclusion guidelines for articles. They're obviously up for interpretation but not a whole lot. If a person's standards are way off base (incorrectly tags articles), then they need to be dealt with on an individual basis instead of saying that all of ARS is broken. Even if someone has done the research or knows about the topic, they may not have time to make the edits. Personally, I make those edits because I try to be thorough but others may not have the time or desire. Even if they don't have the time or desire, letting others know that they think the article can be saved is useful, not matter how little that usefulness may be. OlYeller^Talktome 03:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not about canvassing. It is not about canvassing. If one or two editors are misusing the tools, how can anything ever be done? Any criticism will meet a wall of "Some wikiprojects have a active delete agenda, you are welcome to search out these projects for support in your views." The culture is so broken that there's no hope of productive discussion in the event of any sort of dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My last response didn't say it was about canvassing. You asked what the standard was and I responded. I mentioned incorrectly tagging as a reference for when people misunderstand/misinterpret the standard. Again, you've lumped everyone in ARS into your perception of a few people. Again, you have lumped everyone in ARS into your perception of a few people. We're talking in circles and you haven't addressed the fact that you paint everyone in ARS with the same brush or the fact that I addressed every issue you brought up in response to my comment. I'm getting back to saving articles. Anyone who reads this can think what they want. Respond to your hearts content but I'm taking this page off my watch list. OlYeller^Talktome 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a disruptive nomination. If people are working with good faith in the project, let it be. If it is annoying you, find some other more harmonious area to contribute, this is a pretty big project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator paints 246 active members with the same brush he's using and referencing about 2 or 3 with which he has disagreements. The few editors with which the nominator has issues are not representative of the over 240 other members who themselves strive to improve the project. It makes absolutely no common sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change the water if you must, but keep the baby. As a member who strives to improve articles, I do not see its work as "non-productive" and see the term "poisonous" as being perjorative to myself and the 240+ others engaged in improving the project through the ARS... including those few members who seem to delete articles rather than improve them. Acting to disband the worthy efforts of the ARS because of perceived problems with a few is not the solution. I do not care if the nominator is a critic of the project or a critic of certain members. In reading his "examples" above, I see this nomination that affects so many is based upon his negative interactions with a few, and as such is not worthy of Wikpedia. If AMIB is not happy with the ARS, he is welcome to rescind his own membership (if he hasn'y already done so), as there are several million articles where his skills in editing articles may be of terrific service even without his membership in the ARS. In reading his nomination above and his references to the ARS as "beyond repair", "the thing people feared", "hostile, exclusive group", "poisonous", "poisonous attitude", "armed camp", and "evangelism" as particularly charged... attacking the entire ARS when the histories show his conflicts are with only a few members. And in his responses to the keep opinions, "I don't see how we can get from here to there" seems to indicate that no answer will suffice if it does not support his nomination. "Any suggestion that they exist is evidence of latent deletionism" speaks toward his interactions with certain editors and not the project as a whole. "Essentially sick attitude that this project has become infected with" (ending the sentence with a preposition aside) Again denigrates all becasuse of perceived actions of a few. References to the Esperanza decentralization of January 2007 almost feels like an example of other things no longer exist as justification to delete the ARS. Just as the nominator warns "watch the response to this MFD. I expect to see some attacks on my person for this nomination", he "warns" to watch out for defense being made personal even as he is using the negative examples of a very few as justification to vilify the entire ARS. Nope. Not the way to fix something that he perceives is broken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If AMIB is not happy with the ARS, he is welcome to rescind his own membership (if he hasn'y already done so), as there are several million articles where his skills in editing articles may be of terrific service even without his membership in the ARS."

Who doesn't have this love-it-or-leave-it attitude? It's not one or two wholly obnoxious users; it's an undercurrent of insular hostility that pervades the project.

And if it's just a few users, why are they allowed to manage the talk page? Why are they writing the FAQ? Where's the rejection of this hostile attitude? You're right. I'm lumping the actively hostile editors and the editors who tacitly accept this hostility together, because the project's culture is so damaged that it has ceased to police itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one believes a house has termites, it is wiser to go after the termites rather than burn down the entire stucture. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed is a coordinator, who can counsel members who are misguided, and if necessary suspend their membership. However, attempts to discuss this on the squadron talk page have been unsuccessful. In fact, discussion over setting up an RfC has even run into the ground. In this context, I think a MfD was to be expected. PhilKnight (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered this idea and frankly it simply sets up a target for ARS critics to say ___ isn't doing their job. No one has to be a member to do anything with ARS. We've certainly never suggested they do. And if someone needs "counselling", you can do that yourself - anyone can - and should do it. Just a reality check we're talking about, I believe, 4 or 5 non-neutral posts that A Man In Black made a huge fuss over rather than civilly addressing the user. Instead it was teh project's fault because someone posted a non-neutral message. Does ANI get shut down and shouted down each time a non-neutral post comes flying in? I doubt it. If A Man In Black felt they couldn't handle the situation dispassionately then maybe they could ask for help from a fellow admin. Instead they bullied and edit-warred disrupting this project. -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at WP:AFD, I don't see this group as doing any harm. If there is acrimony on the talk page, there ought to be a better way to resolve the problems than closing down the project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RfC, as a subpage there and advertised per WP:Advertising discussions. File individual user RfCs as necessary, sticking to normal certification procedures. I support further community discussion, and I have indicated that in several brief comments at WT:Article Rescue Squadron. The structure of RfC (separate statements, no threaded discussion on the main page) will help focus discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the proposed modifications, I prefer convert to process, but the details should be refined in another discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again if there is a neutral and constructive RfC that actually concerns ths project as opposed to all Wikiprojects or some editors then I would be happy to work on it. Otherwise it smalls of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT ergo I'll disrupt it by process which this MfD, IMHO has been. -- Banjeboi 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I'd agree with AMiB that attempting to illustrate any problems of the ARS has effectively become worthless, largely due to the current ARS members' inability to consider any sort of criticism. It's incredibly disturbing that so many members of the ARS who joined at its founding have appeared on the talk page of the project indicating that the direction it is taking is blatantly wrong, and the current members have 1) refused to listen to any criticism 2) gone around dismissing arguments out of hand now 3) simply archiving discussions despite being involved. Uncle G's comments that AMiB have quoted are very pertinent. Deletion would be nice, but I would force a widely advertised RfC first, whether the ARS wants it or not. If the RfC demands changes of the ARS and it doesn't respond, then we go back to MfD and delete it as a last resort. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for good measure, we now have this gem from ArbCom (which is going to pass obviously) that the ARS needs to address. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your POV and mine are not in agreement on this but I've responded to your posts on the talkpage concerning these points. -- Banjeboi 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1[edit]

Start an RfC on the workings of the talk page and on the group of overprotective editors dismissing all issues the ARS has (and if you want to know who these editors are in my view: mainly Ikip and Benjiboi, and to a lesser degree A Nobody, Dream Focus, and MichaelQSchmidt. I can imagine that A Man in Black and myself would also fall under this RfC as possible cause of the problems. An RfC has been proposed on the talk page but dismissed by those editors and archived over the weekend. Alternatively, Keep the project and the rescue tag but blank and salt all project talk pages, this would solve all the problems without changing anything for the actively rescuing members, apart from the handful mentioned above. Fram (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We should start an RfC on admin critics of the project who make next to no effort to help improve article content but do make delete closes of rescued templated AFDs against consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Give names of who you mean or shut up, please. Fram (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Discussions that should more correctly have been closed as no consensus, but were closed instead as delete due to personal preference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time magazine top 100, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talos (Resident Evil), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of advertising slogans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Pickles (3nd nomination), etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, me. If you think I make "next to no effort to help improve article content", you are wrong. As for the AfD's listed: none has been reverted or even recreated, even though some of them are two years old. If there would be an indication that I regularly closed AfD's incorrectly by a string of succesful DRV's, you may have had a point. None of these were though. One was overturned by myself, after a request to do so by you, because the nominator as an abusive sockpuppet. The implication that I would single out rescue tagged articles for deletion is incorrect as well. Some of those you listed were not even tagged for rescue either. But it is reassuring that you only need two minutes to produce a list of AfD closures of years back where you disagreed with my closure without in many cases taking it up with me or taking it to DRV. Anyway, feel free to start such an RfC. Fram (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I and others have challenged some of these closes on your talk page (a few editors criticized that Eve Online spaceship one for example) as they clearly had no consensus and the closes read more like an opinion that could have been left as a comment in the discussion rather than accurate reads of the discussions, but I have transwikied many of them preemptively, so it's not as if the content is totally last anyway, but rather than get side-tracked and which is why I perhaps took the bait in your comment, what makes it hard to take these sorts of attacks on the project as sincere or unbiased is when I see things like your lumping a number of us editors together above with the implications in the comment "the actively rescuing members, apart from the handful mentioned above", which is a flat out insult to Michael and I in particular, who whether you are persuaded by our sourcing or not, nevertheless actively work to rescue articles. I frequently go through the list of templated articles and even if I cannot find sources at least do minor grammar or spacing fixes. I certainly don't make it a point to copy and paste say to keep in every rescue templated AfD (I avoid commenting in AfDs anymore unless I think it absolutely needed) and I have actually even argued to delete in rescue templated AfDs. So, yes, I am opposed to distracting criticism that comes off in an unfriendly manner, but to make some kind of suggestion that Michael who I would say surpasses me in his efforts to find and actually add sources to articles and I somehow aren't members actually rescuing the articles is again simply insulting and unwarranted and makes it incredibly difficult if that is how you actually perceive things to then view any criticisms as justifiable. As far as calling for an RFC on the group (and which is why I don't start RFC on people myself), that, like the MfD would be just more time in which editors spend time doing something other than actually working to improve articles, which I thought is what we are supposed to be here for. Good faith and constructive criticism is fine. Insulting members who actually do work to improve the articles under discussion is not. And when the criticism by a handful of accounts gets so fixated that it gets in the way of the project's efforts to improve article, then that is where I oppose it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You misinterpreted "without changing anything for the actively rescuing members, apart from the handful mentioned above." It would only change something for the small group of rescuers who are also very active on the ARS talk page, but would change nothing for the other members. I did not say (and did not mean to imply) that the "handful mentioned above" are not among the "actively rescuing members". If I say "stricter controls on budget spending would changing nothing for the members of parliament, apart from those abusing the system", then I don't say that those abusing the system are not members of parliament. Fram (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, you insult me in that post, because in a couple of instances I asked for attention not to be lost on the article rescuing in all these blocks of text from the same handful of accounts as critcisms. I am not participating in the edit-warring on the Faq page and aside from a few quick comments, am avoiding going back and forth in the massive threads. I am here, because I absolutely find renominations of things previously speedily kept disruptive. As for the talk page, yes, there are unconstructive discussions on the talk page that we could do without, but also good faith proposals, such as Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Some_proposals and Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Contest_2.3F, for example, which are intended to encourage editors to help improve articles and to be blunt I don't appreciate this aspersion of being lumped together as if my comments on the talk page are discouraging criticisms and unwelcome when I am an active contributor to trying to improve articles tagged by the project and when threads that I start on the talk page are meant to decrease tensions and help build articles. Some of the suggestions on that talk page do come off as good faith suggestions and those are met relatively positively; but others however come off all high and mighty like and yes, some as biased, and these are not met well. A project is and should be open to advice and ideas, but not impositions and not being talked down to. Anyway, in my "speedy keep" argument above, I didn't make it a point to call you out as a critic of the project, so I see your comment in your post where I get mentioned and it's like WTH?! In any event, I will never get why so much time is spent in XfDs and on various talk pages rather than improving articles. I cannot believe how much time and effort is misplaced on this site. Just think of how many improved articles we would have if we weren't having to go back and forth on all these talks pages. Personally, I downright despise having to comment in these discussions; I would greatly prefer improving articles, but feel compelled to comment, because, well, my back is hurting and I am tired, so, probably too agitated to say more now anyway. Good night. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If my opinion of your actions on the ARS talk page insults you, so be it. You have been commenting a lot on the talk page, not adressing any of the perceived problems, but not wanting an RfC on any of them either. This indicates to me that you either didn't agree that there are problems, or didn't want them to be solved, hence my reason for including you. And the fact thatyou did or did not mention me has nothing to do with me mentioning you, I don't think or act in such a retaliatory fashion, I try to be honest, and when I am indicating that I have problems with a numer of editors' actions on one particular page, it is no more than logical than that I name these individuals. Otherwise it is all empty handwaving. Then again, claiming that I "make next to no effort to help improve article content" falls squarely in that category as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have bothered naming anyone, since that is obviously not expected. It is apparently better to insult people without naming them than to be clear and open. I'll try to remember that... Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, you have been supporting for months a very disruptive editor, AMIB. Again as A Nobody has illustrated, having you decide the future of ARS is like spammers deciding what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam should or should not do. ARS's goals and ambitions run counter to your edit history of deleting other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have supported my own views and have acted in what I believe to be upholding policies and guidelines. I have not supported or opposed editors until today, when I named some people I consider the main cause of the continuation of all the discussions. A Nobody has not illustrated anything, he had made empty and incorrect generalisations, which you are just repeating. My edit history does not run counter to my edit history, which includes much, much more than "deleting other editors contributions". I know that you have a tendency to divide people in opposing camps like inclusionists vs. deletionists, and that those who disagree with you should find other projects, but I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, I am a Wikipedian. Fram (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I never used those terms at all here. In supporting your own views you have strongly supported a disruptive editor repeatedly, which is against upholding policies and guidelines. Ikip (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I "strongly supported a disruptive editor repeatedly"? Have I lauded his supposedly disruptive actions? Copied them? Or have I just in some other discussions at the same page had a similar position to his in that specific discussion? Where have I acted "against upholding policies and guidelines"? Fram (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC rather than outright deletion. I don't think anybody would disagree that improving articles that are listed in a deletion discussion is a Good Thing. However, given the dismissive/combative attitude shown to anyone who has the temerity to show any concern over the way the ARS operates, (see Rfc discussion on ARS talk page) it is clear that comment is required from a wider audience. pablo_hablo. 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem's idea below may have legs though I still think a RfC is the next step. added later pablo_hablo. 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@A Nobody - not here, you shouldn't. pablo_hablo. 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (refactored) I have been editing since October 2005. I am an editor with over 30,000 edits. Over 3,000 of those edits have been deleted, the majority of them well sourced edits, which meet all wikipedia guidelines.
It took me two years to find the article rescue squadron, in that time I had quit wikipedia several times out of frustration. With 75.3% of all articles nominated for deletion are articles created by new editors, what I personally love about the article rescue squadron is how it helps retain new editors, the Article Rescue Suadron helps encourage new editors to continue editing here. Article rescue squadron helps new editors stay on wikipedia, by teaching editors how to source and save articles. Ikip (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's that "dismissive/combative attitude" again! pablo_hablo. 10:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored my comments. Ikip (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you did, many, many times on this page alone. Why, I have no idea; it only serves to confuse, and makes other editors responses to you seem less relevant. pablo_hablo. 05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or mark historical, roughly per Pablomismo's argument. I don't think ARS is rescuable. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — at best mark as historical. While this may have once been a useful WikiProject, it has irretrievably devolved into a “squad” of indiscriminate keep-at-all-costs partisans. It has been deliberately hijacked as a means to ((confound)) the AfD process. It has become disruptive and has resisted considerable efforts to discuss the issues. It had its RfC over the last few months on the talkpage and there is little reason to expect a more formal one to fare any better.
Compare our deletion policy with our rescue policy to understand the lack of consensus for the activities of this WikiProject. Editors who wish to improve articles are always free to do so; are encouraged to do so. The legitimate goal of improving notable content can be achieved independent of the deletion process and Wikipedia would be better served by efforts prior to that last minute. However, the primary focus here — the relentless obstruction of efforts to improve Wikipedia by deleting inappropriate content — is unacceptable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting take on things but woefully at odds with reality. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these assertions? -- Banjeboi 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is important to note that the editors thus far who have voted to delete this page or take it to RfC are editors who historically delete/merge pages, and whose efforts to delete/merge other editors contributions has been slowed by ARS. Having these editors decide the future of ARS is like spammers deciding what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam should or should not do. Ikip (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating the same soundbite does not make it anymore true or even relevant. You included me in that group above, but I don't "historically delete/merge pages", I delete/merge/redirect/create/improve/check/tag pages, and my efforts have not been slowed down by the ARS, since my efforts are not contrary to those of the ARS. Fram (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't do the following because of WP:POINT, but suppose I created Wikipedia:Article Deletion Team for the obvious purpose. Do you think nobody from the ARS or any other inclusionist body would then have any opposition to it, and that such people should have no say in its continuation? Stifle (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, A Nobody seems to disagree, and Stifle. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion anyone is welcome to restart this page. Ikip (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With what? That my efforts have not slowed down? That I do much more than delete/merge? That my actions are not contrary to the ARS's stated purpose? That your soundbite isn't true? Or that it isn't relevant? As for that other project: you have repetadely tried to shoo me away from the ARS by suggesting another place, and I have patiently replied that I'll edit where I want to, not where you want me to. I fail to see how you hope to achieve anything by making the same suggestion again, but perhaps it is an attempt to add the word "deletion" somehow to any post involving me. I don't think anyone neutral will be fooled though. Fram (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response was directed to Stifle, who uses the tired example of "what if there was a deletion group and we did the same thing". I refered him to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion, which is just that group.

I didn't make the same suggestion to you Fram. Your views are quite set. I don't think anyone neutral will be fooled that you have the best interest of ARS in mind. Ikip (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best interests are not the same as the best interests of the ARS, Ikip. Apart from that, if your response was directed at Stifle, you should change your punctuation of those two sentences, perhaps changing the "." to a ":"... Finally, you did make the same suggestion to me repeatedly: "But, Fram, I think you would be more comfortable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion." (May 7[7]) and "I am simply suggesting your views maybe appreciated more at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. "[8]. Fram (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep ARS is a motivational project which succeeds in harnessing energy that otherwise might be directed elsewhere from Wiki. I cant agree that members wish to disrupt improvement of the encyclopaedia by deletion - many of us have voted delete in the past when its been appropriate. My only other vote on mfD was speedy delete. Article Rescue Squad exists to rescue notable put poorly written articles by improving them so they demonstrably meet our inclusion criteria , thereby saving valuable information and preventing new editors being discouraged by seeing their contributions obliterated. Its in the name!FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. You might want to look at the history of WP:EA to see a cautionary tale. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the AFD that closed that project, it was almost unanimous to close that page, whereas this page already has many more keeps than delete. Ikip (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At any time there seem to be about 1000 articles at AFD and about 5% of these are tagged for rescue. (The figures just now were 59 of 954). And note that this is just AFD - it doesn't include MFD, CFD, proposed deletion, speedy deletion, etc. This puts matters in proportion and shows that the suggestion that the ARS are wild-eyed inclusionists who try to keep everything is just a silly straw man. But 5% seems to be too low a figure as we have many nominations at AFD which are made without the sensible preliminaries required by the deletion process. So, for example, we have articles like Jagger/Richards proposed for deletion even though the topic seems quite notable and even though there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Rescue tags seem quite helpful to the project in such cases because other articles seem to be slipping through the net, such as John/Taupin - the similar collaboration of Bernie Taupin and Elton John - which was deleted despite insufficient discussion. Our rescue team should be strengthened in accordance with our editing policy and deletion of this page would run counter to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having read a lot of what has been going on recently in trying to summarise for an RfC that was ultimately dismissed as unneeded, I think there are certainly issues within the membership and their perception of the role of ARS within the wider community. We have for example, the issue at the DRV for the Red cunt hair article, of an ARS member stating that ARS is mandated to consider the policy merits of an article and vote accordingly. Or the attitude that ARS can do whatever it likes because it is a Wikiproject, and the "why should the community get to dictate to us" attitude. The overall thread of these is a semi-paranoia that "the deletionists are coming to get us", which is unfounded, but occasionally mirrored by the other side of the argument. The question for the MfD (in part) is whether this is so endemic in the membership that the project needs to be deactivated.

ARS is not required to balance the deletion policy - if the guidelines are not being enforced, raise it at the appropriate venues. If the guidelines ae faulty, change them. The single thing that ARS appears to have been founded for was a collective of people identifying articles that could meet the guidelines for inclusion, but needed rapid cleanup because of the limited time of AfD to demonstrate this - even the nominator of this MfD agrees with this principle. A Wikiproject's purpose can evolve over the lifetime of Wikipedia, but a Wikiproject exists only by the consent of the community and if the project doesn't engage with them in determining scope or in responding to concerns (including organising topic bans locally of people who disagree with changes), then we have a problem worthy of closing the project down per WP:ESPERANZA.

So it is, in my opinion, in the hands of ARS members - they can consent to being RfC'd and acting on the advice given, or they can look forward to the perpetual cycle of this kind of debate that will waste everybody's time. I am in no position to judge the current state of the project, but this is an analysis that will hopefully inform the closing admin's analysis of the remaining comments. Finally, I would humbly suggest that playing the man and not the ball in this debate is not going to get us anywhere - comments should relate to the project, not to the behaviour of individual editors Fritzpoll (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey kids, the word for the day is ESPERANZA. It is clear that interest in the RFC was waining, and so AMIB, who has a history of edit warring on and off ARS, attempted this instead. Ikip (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have no particular interest in seeing ARS closed down, because I think that its stated goal is worthwhile pursuing. Esperanza is a good example of how "member-centric" organisations on-wiki end up. Finally, I repeat my appeal to comment on the substance, rather than the nominator, since there are clearly others who agree (at least in part) to his suggestions. Attacks on AMiB will be discarded by the closing admin, so I'd focus your energy on something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with Esperanza seems to have been that its activities were not open and transparent, as significant parts of them were conducted on IRC, not here. This indicates that this page is proper and needed to provide such an open and transparent noticeboard for rescue activities. That case therefore supports the keeping of this page. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of those here are disputing the openess of the ARS. Esperanza failed, not because of IRC, but because of it's unwillingness to be open to the community and failing to respond (and routinely dismissing) concerns expressed about it. In that sense, this is relevant to the complaint at hand. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with Esperanza seems to have been that it developed a leadership structure - its council. The ARS currently does not have formal leadership and that seems fine. It is editors such as yourself who seek to impose formal structures and officials upon the ARS. Your activity is contrary to the Esperanza precedent which indicates that loose and informal organisation is appropriate for the ARS. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Some proposals. Fram (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz, when the nominator adds long quotes about editors in ARS, stating there is a certain mindset, it shows that the nominator is interested in a behavioral change. I want everyone here, not just the editors whose edits are dramically opposed to the spirit of ARS, to realize what a disruptive influence AMIB has been on the project.

Fritz, I don't see you asking AMIB to remove these long quotes in the nomination.

Fram, that was one isolated suggestion by A Nobody. We have no leadership structure. Ikip (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into a WP Process, remove concept of membership - Rescuing articles and the ((rescue)) templates are fine; in fact, I proposed an idea WP:POSTPONE to allow an article at AFD to be given a reasonable amount of time (one month) to become improved at which point a re-evaluation can be made. This is the same as ARS' goal, but now as a process instead of the objectives of one group; there'd need to be some more discussion but its not hard to see a common result of work could be. Much of what AMIB points out is the fact that because ARS acts as an isolated group like other Wikiprojects despite their scope being WP-wide. There's too much conflation of issues with canvasing, participating in policy/guideline discussions, group-think behavior at AFD, and the like that are just too questionable. By removing the membership aspect and that any such group exists, editors can behave as editors and all the conflation issues mostly disappear because of the perceived ARS bias. There probably should be an advice page for how to rescue an article that can be pulled from the ARS pages tied in with the process described above, but striking the concepts of membership in ARS will go a long way to remove a lot of issues that AMIB talks about, while still promoting rescuing of articles at AFD. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That idea looks really interesting Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less what I tried to suggest in my !vote above, but your solution is more elegant. Fram (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would still have a page to describe the process and it would, effectively, be the same as this one. You cannot proscribe membership as this is effectively just a matter of rescuing behaviour (which is a good thing) and a userbox (which exist for all sorts of editing activities). Colonel Warden (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see a membership section on WP:AFD? Jack Merridew 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are more deletion process pages than I can count. There seem to be pages similar to this one associated with them, e.g. WP:WPPDP and WP:AfD Patrol. Likewise, there are more userboxes than I can count, including some openly deletionist ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)I like this idea a lot. I think that the people that are seen as a problem may have simply become a very vocal minority and this would certainly help solve that problem. I worry though that, the guideline for using the WP:POSTPONE tag will essentially turn into what ARS was but people just won't have a tag on their user page for it. I also worry about the abusal of the Postpone tag by newer editors and that a month seems like a long time to postpone an AfD. I support this idea if WP:POSTPONE gets ironed out and approved. I haven't completely read WP:POSTPONE yet so I may be way off base though. OlYeller^Talktome 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The process does already exist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, which categorises AfDs so people can participate in AfD discussions and edit problematic articles that are in their areas of interest and expertise. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: The good thing with this is that we could actually integrate rescue into the deletion process, allowing us to implement things like WP:BEFORE in a less intrusive way, and being able to avoid the need for stressful renominations of content that isn't improved simply by taking our time. At the moment, there is an artificial rapid deadline for ARS - and this will fix several things at once. Of course, you couldn't close ARS on the basis of a proposed process, so this would essentially be a vote for migration to the new process. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POSTPONE could evolve into a reasonable successor to the ARS. Seems I missed that idea last year ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, definitely worth further consideration. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before taking whacks at dismantling this, or any Wikiproject, could you demonstrate that the membership has been acting as one voting block, or one anything? Or done anything wrong at all? Or caused any harm to anything? I do support enforcing WP:Before at AfD, this would save everyone some time and free us up for articles that really need more scrutiny. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to parse through the past but it is clear from actions of someone like Ikip that there's a fine line from participating in discussions regarding article rescue in general and discussions on anti-deletionists stances. If everyone in ARS behaved rationally and to the sprite of ARS, there wouldn't have been 4 XFDs to dismantle the project; as it is, it is very easy to slip from the "rescue" to the "anti-deletionists" ledge, even unintentionally. I believe that all ARS are sincere in their goals to improve WP through improves articles tagged as rescue, but the fact that it is just too easy for this group to lose focus because of the nature of its mission means that likely it is better to keep this a more open process, making it something all WP can (and should) participate in, instead of sectioning it off to a small group. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Process-ize Using it as it is, is clearly causing more problems than solutions. I believe this is also similar in some aspects to Jclemens' suggestions. I have "rescued" articles on my own without any formal "membership" in anything, and the creation of a carefully monitored process (to prevent the wikidramas recurring) seems a rational step. Collect (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced monitoring of the AfD process to promote the use of WP:Before would perhaps be a more efficient way to reduce drama, as well as helping us retain more valuable content. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before taking whacks at dismantling this, or any Wikiproject, could you demonstrate that it is "clearly causing more problems than solutions"? Or caused any harm to anything? -- Banjeboi 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as far as the process goes. Perhaps restrict tagging to non-controversial topics (i.e. no fiction or pop culture). ARS has worked well on obscure topics that are likely be given a fair hearing, as long as someone realizes that it's possible to write a good article. But it's usually useless on the kinds of topics that attract deletionists and inclusionists like moths to a flame, if those articles are rescuable they will attract lots of eyes anyway. If people are disrupting the deletion processes (and I'm sure they don't need ARS to do so) take them to arbcom or something. 140.247.250.198 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the idea is actually a very useful one for article improvement, voting here has predictably mirrored AfD debates with the usual suspects taking sides (me included). As we all know, AfD is not about counting votes, so it shouldn't matter how many keeps are added, only the rationale for doing so. I have also sen A Nobody do a good job of digging up sources, which I note AmiB didn't mention. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ARS is a call to find references for articles, not a call to influence voting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same MfD page? --BlueSquadronRaven 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I like it. More people doing this sort of work is what WP needs, frankly. I've had articles marked for deletion when only a few seconds old. Lots of people with their fingers on the delete trigger patrolling, not enough on the other side. The editor proposing the deletion seems a little ..oops, shut-up, Ratel. ► RATEL ◄ 16:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for summing up the nomination. Now what's your argument for keeping it? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reality here is that the even if anyone honestly believes the ARS has any issues, these are symptoms and not causes. Treating a symptom while ignoring a cause accomplishes nothing. We can't justifiably go after the ARS when many of those saying to delete in AfDs make rapid fire, copy and paste and frequently dishonest claims of WP:JNN without ever looking for sources or even making minor fixes to the article. I can if necessary cite examples of accounts who have posted copy and paste per noms in 8 AfDs in under a minute, who have declared it a mission to delete and so would never argue to keep (even if the article is substantially improved), who accuses ARS members of canvassing while clearly engaging in such behavior themselves, etc. The reason why I have opposed criticism on the ARS page is because it is 1) hypocritical, because it excuses the behavior of the deletes and comes off frequently in an arrogant and authoritative manner. Well, as Napoleon said, There are people who really believe in their talent to govern simply because they are governing." You could easily switch govern and governing with edit and editing around here. 2) it frequently comes from those who are having ongoing disputes with specific members of the project and thus is right off the bat coming off in a hostile manner 3) does not offer solutions to the cause of these concerns. What we need is not fixing the ARS, but AfD atmosphere in general, because what we have in AfDs are non-experts dishonestly claiming "non-notable" for articles that in reality they just don't like and as such don't really care if the articles are imporved or not. They just don't like lists or articles on fictional characters or in popular culture or bilateral relations. They don't WANT these articles improved and so for some (again, I do believe some of the critics are acting in good faith), their hope is not to address AfD canvassing or what have you, but to silence those who might cause AfDs they want closed as delete to close as something else. We are kidding ourselves if we believe otherwise. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an awfully terrible mindset to have and a widesweeping bad-faith assumption of various editors. What you just did with this comment is no different in spirit from the nominator in terms of perpetuating partisan conflicts in wikipedia and does nothing to address some of the legitimate concerns regarding the behaviour of a few ARS members. You being a vocal representative of the ARS, I would have hoped you would conduct yourself in a manner in this discussion that serves to alleviate the criticisms levelled at the group instead of responding with 'well what about you' statements. In short, refrain from ad hominem arguments.DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— DDDtriple3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer editing articles while logged-out. DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith, but not to the point of naivety. There is a difference between ad hominem and telling it as it is. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @A Nobody: But surely we are here exactly because there are people who believe "that the ARS has issues". We had a lengthy pre-RfC discussion at ARS talk because there are people who believe "that the ARS has issues". (eventually this was aborted and Fritzpoll, who had put a lot of effort into mediation, effectively told "go away, no problem here"). The people who have been discussing this problem have become entrenched, this is not helped by the battleground mentality of some (Ikip, please don't assume I mean A Man In Black every time I mention a combative attitude) which is why this project needs comment from a wider audience. pablo_hablo. 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Some have good faith recommendations for how the ARS can improve as a project, but others are clearly trying to get rid of something that prevents them from deleting articles they don't like. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that ARS stops anybody from doing anything. When it works, it improves articles that are nominated for deletion. Improving the article is of course no guarantee against deletion; I have spent a lot of time trawling for sources for some articles with no luck, but in those cases it shows that the nomination was a good one. pablo_hablo. 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it does, it improves articles that can be improved and this venue shopping of the talk page, MfD, threatening an RfA, etc. distracts us from focusing on improving articles and it ignores the much larger causes of these disputes, which is a larger AfD issue, not an ARS issue. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2[edit]

RFC and/or process MASEM's idea is interesting. I think that comparing this to Esperanza isn't valid, since that project was all over the place on things it did, and it's components when broken up like Ma Bell thrived. ARS's one core idea--rescuing an article under AFD by building out it's sourcing to meet WP:N--is not a bad thing on any level. If some people on either side of the whole inclusionist/deletionist thing are causing a problem in regards to the ARS, then take them through WP:DR, up to and including the WP:RFAR. I strongly, strongly urge that no one involved in either side of the debate(s) do something like MFD again. The next stop if there is a problem should be WP:RFAR, to examine the behavior of all the core participants. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are but two editors at the core of the problems; Ikip who has taken on personal criticisms but at heart seems very much an inclusionist. To Ikip's credit they are hearing that they are welcome here but ARS isn't an inclusionist group. Then there's A Man In Black (AMIB) who has locked horns with Ikip and seems unwilling to disengage. AMIB has widened their problematic behaviours to litter the entire talkpage with one bad faith and sweeping mischaracterization after the next. I invite anyone who doubts this to review the last 5-7 archive pages. Unless something was removed the evidence of behaviours rather speaks for itself. Ikip has been quite reasonable whereas AMIB has been extremely disruptive. That they are an admin and actng out as this is even more disturbing. -- Banjeboi 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Mark historical though i know it's in vain at this point. Why? They foster a battlfield mentality, propogate an ideology that is bad for wikipedia (it boils down to: "If someone can think of a topic, it should be included. If someone can't think of a topic, they should think harder."), and in practice is eroding what little confidence there is in processes like AFD by what appears to me to be a nice wrap-around on the canvassing rules. While their tag is a useful tool for rounding up the posse to "save" articles, many of the articles thus "saved" are improved not a whit. This project is also redundant -- you can both patrol the new AFD pages as an individual user if you're afraid that the article on the 54th most popular pokemon character might be deleted and you can also look at our rather expansive categories on articles in need of citations and verification if you're interested in improving content. I think almost all projects with such a broad scope are damaging to wikipedia, because they foster social networking and cabal-ism (for lack of a better word) and lead to in-group/out-group type thinking on behalf of everyone that is corrosive to creating accurate, verifiable and relevant encyclopedia articles. I say "almost all" because i haven't assessed them all. But i've seen this one in action, and stand by my view. At this point, from a wikipedia "in-universe" perspective, the logical next step for people that actually value things like, you know, citations from reliable sources that might establish notability, is to create something like the Notability and Verification Brigade that uses a similiar template and tactics. I don't support doing that and wouldn't join such an effort if it was started, but that's the road this is all heading down.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By that same logic then we must delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, because it fosters a battlefield mentality and ideology that is bad for Wikipedia by turning away editors and insulting real living people by having public discussions in which random accounts insult these people by arbitrarily deeming them "non-notable". AfD runs counter to the whole concept of a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually raise some interesting questions. The thing I'm curious about, and that I never see answered: if during the case of AFD, if anyone sources up an article to where it passes WP:N according to WP:N's standards, where/how is that ever a bad thing? Views on notability aside, that's what I don't get. The core idea seems harmless. If I see an AFD of a topic, and I say, well, let me check again, and find a bunch of sources and add them--whats the harm in that? Or in getting a half dozen people to each pull up 5 sources? All the extra sourcing helps Wikipedia, doesn't it? If not... why? rootology (C)(T) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to be rude but you don't see it answered because it isn't a terribly enlightening question. There is near universal support for the notion of rescue through research (just dropping sources on the AfD discussion) or rescue through editing (actually adding the source to the article). That much is true from past discussions on this project. But support for that general principle or support for that rescue action doesn't translate to support for the ARS project itself. It is not accurate to say that the general goal of article rescue is unique to or identical to the ARS project nor is it accurate to say that opposition to the ARS project represents opposition to article rescue or research of articles at AfD. At best it is a vague affirmation of goals at worst it is used as a barb by adherents to the project to tar opposing editors. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not rude at all. :) That's why I asked, because I think a lot of people like myself aren't super deep into these Wars, and don't have time to read 1,000 days of history that led up to this new nomination, and were just hoping for a couple of different synopsis reviews of who/what/when/where/how. :) rootology (C)(T) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm certainly biased here but for what it's worth ... There are but two editors at the core of the problem; Ikip who has taken on personal criticisms but at heart seems very much an inclusionist. In February they independenty invited @300 (we're told) editors who had inclusionist userboxes; over the next few months over 100 people joined - many likely from those same invites. No one knows how many are active or how they may adhere to any inclusionism ideologies. A Man In Black (AMIB) who has many prior disagreements with Ikip and various ARS scuff-ups took this to an admin board where it was dismissed; Ikip wasn't doing it via bot and invites were common practice. In response ARS created a neutral invite template that anyone could use. AMIB apparently would have preferred a different outcome. To Ikip's credit they are hearing that they are welcome here but ARS isn't an inclusionist group. AMIB has locked horns with Ikip and seems unwilling to disengage. Ikip posts a lot but has generated some useful ideas to help new users. Among their posts encouraged ARS to at least two policy discussions that I recall - they weren't terribly neutral but neither were they compelling enough for me to see them as that big of deal. AMIB edit-warred on those and many subsequent things they didn't like. At one point deleting a link, a neutrally worded one, to a TfD. In response I did a RfC to see if TfDs were OK fo ARS to be involved in. The community ruled they were. AMIB then filled the talkpage with one bad faith and sweeping mischaracterization after the next. After the TfD RfC, AMIB has been disrupting pretty much since then thwarting all reasonable conversation. A topic ban from ARS would make sense, Ikip has modified their stance and behaviour whereas A Man In Black has gotten worse. -- Banjeboi 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ARS does a not-terrible job of keeping articles from being deleted, so it's no surprise that it should attempt to be deleted itself. Cut of the snake's head and all. MalikCarr (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical I would have supported keeping ARS from being marked as historical on the past 3 MfDs, but the project is no longer recognizable. I'm sorry, but we can't use a project which has a special remit to fight battles about the nature of wikipedia. It must be used to rescue articles. It has fallen so far from that core principle that I can't imagine an internal reorganization which would right it. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence of the project "fallen so far from that core principle " of rescuing articles? -- Banjeboi 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical Rescuing is good but the cabalization of it just brings in more drama then its worth. Some of the keeps above seem to attack the nominator rather then the reasons brought by the nominator. Q ^{T C} 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence of the WP:Cabal at work? -- Banjeboi 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost every keep so far has been attacking the nominator rather then the points he has made. In my eyes, that's the actions of people who are trying to protect their 'circle' Q ^{T C} 05:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've kept out of all the discussions on the project page between AMiB and whoever he's arguing with about whatever the issue is, because it got boring and would have wasted time I can better spend rescuing articles. Rescuing articles involves: finding an article worthy of rescue, googling the heck out of it (news, scholar, books; occasionally going into my library's databases), and writing up and properly citing the information I find. It can take an hour or three, depending, or even more; so anything that can cut down the time wasted trawling through the junk in the AfD process is absolutely fantastic. Also, would the world please quit wasting my time on forcing me to argue for keeping a useful project again and again and again and again? For God's sake, four nominations??? SRSLY! --Zeborah (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that having this discussion is somehow more valuable than rescuing articles. AMiB isn't. I'm not. Masem isn't. Specifically we are saying that rescuing articles is good but that this project, the ARS project has become less focused on that and more focused on fighting battles about article inclusion. Since they treat any attempt to modify this as either an attack or a triviality (as you have demonstrated by just announcing that we should go rescue articles), a process like this is necessary to bring outside editors into the discussion. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you replying to me or to someone else? Because I haven't said the things you seem to be replying to. --Zeborah (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No effort is perfect but reform can be achieved if warring editors can agree on a timeout to let thing cool down. Mattnad (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laughter. Could anyone seriously MFD this project with an expectation of anything other than a chorus of keep? Durova^Charge! 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, with all the words on this page, you said it best of all. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could interpret Durova's comment a completely different way, but oh well. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OH my. Not sure who is interpreting it the right way, or if you are interpreting it the same as I did. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attitude could certainly be interpreted as support of the nomination. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I thought about ((rescue))-tagging WP:ARS — ~~but the template doesn't support Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion~~. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already tagged, Jack. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MfD-tagged, not rescue-tagged. Not that I'm going there. But I see that ((rescue)) does support a link-arg; I think that's new. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 3[edit]

~~keep~~ This is something we need to have. Whatever problems exist between editors involved need to be resolved via dispute resolution. We don't do away with areas where the is contention-- we work out the people problems. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

change to Speedy keep on reflection on the fact that the nominator brought this here subsequesnt to an edit war? I can't bring myself to join the call for a topic ban of AMiB, but I urge him to use his block as an opportunity to reflect on whether the disruption and upset are in any way beneficial-- are the points of his disagreement with others worth all of this and the more that is coming. I'm convinced it is not. Dlohcierekim 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy puts it very well below. Dlohcierekim 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and seriously consider topic-banning nom from engaging this project again. Wow. Speaking of official disruption. Nom has been engaging in a war of attrition turning this Wikiproject's talkpage into a battleground. That they are an admin is even more chilling for incivility and bad faith accusations galore. I was rather shocked at being accused of canvassing myself. For what? For posting a neutral note to a TfD link of discussion. Thier reaoning was that any post of non-article XfD just had to be canvassing - no matter that it wasn't. I stood up for my beliefs and started a RfC, which nom proceeded to edit-war on but the community consensus was that TfDs, and likely all XfDs were also fine for ARS' work. Since then this nom has edit warred and made more, IMHO, uncivil, baiting and disparaging comments. They have also edit-warred on our FAQ page specifically enacted to address concerns they claim to be championing. They site a core concern being to avoid allowing "inclusionists" to run this Wikiproject - no matter that has never happenned - because it may turn policy and other relevant discussions into a battleground. Guess what? That's what they've been doing to this Wikiproject for several months now. -- Banjeboi 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AMIB's nomination is a violation of WP:REICHSTAG and WP:POINT. I recently had to remove the ARS talk page from my watchlist due to arguments, edit warring, and other disruption there, much of which directly involved AMIB. Note, I'm not even a "member" of ARS but I still find ARS very useful. Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close Knee-jerk response to disruptive MfD. How about letting people who want to work together work together? --Abd (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to add "Speedy Close" because there isn't a snowball's chance that the balance on this will shift to delete or even to "mark historical," and an admin closure other than keep or no consensus (the latter would be a stretch) would be, itself, disruptive, creating more drama at WP:DRV, so all this does, now, is to continue to attract wasted editorial time. AMIB's block is unfortunate, but it's moot here. --Abd (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty big stretch, bordering on threatening, to say that a finding of delete would be disruptive. Alas, this is exactly the attitude of ARS AMiB pointed out in his nomination. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy Close This is not Ye Olde Blacksmith Shoppe -- those with axes to grind are in the wrong venue. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to refute the arguments or just attack the nominator? If the latter, your !vote carries no weight. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to refute. The motives behind the nomination are transparent; there is no connection between the genesis of this MfD and legitimate concerns regarding the character and quality of Wikipedia's editorial content. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i only see useful results from the work of people doing the rescues. Whenever i have seen anything "negative" it has been simply a bunch of loud arguments from people who don't like the ARS, i've never actually seen anything which the ARS has done which could be construed as detrimental to Wikipedia. If people spent more time improving articles, and less time shitting all over the things they don't like, we could have a better encyclopedia. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~₄₁₁~ 04:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as historical, or convert into an official Wikipedia process as suggested by Masem above. While I understand it has plenty of members, some of whom do do good work in improving articles, this wikiproject seems to cause more trouble than it's worth - I have concerns that it's effectively become a place to canvass for support in AFDs, rather than for improving articles. While it looks like it will probably be kept, I hope the issues raised by this nomination will not be overlooked by its members. Robofish (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you may find that most of those "problems" are tied directly back to nom in one way or another. I see no evidence, and no one has yet to provide any, that the project is doing anything wrong. Uather ths issues are limited in number and isolated to very few people. No reasona project should be vilified for a user behaviour and an admin's gross over-reaction to it. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does very good article improvements. The ARS talk page sometimes gets used for general inclusionist chat, especially by newbies who want to vent about getting their articles deleted. That problem is manageable, though it is made worse by a few deletionists who hang out there and pick fights with everyone. The member list could be removed. That seems rather pointless. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the canard that the canvassing happens by newbies has been apparently successfully launched by Benjiboi et. al. In fact, the canvassing that was criticized (a.o. by me, and I'm not a deletionist) was done by people who have been around since 2005 - 2006, made plenty of edits, and are fully aware of our canvassing policy. Fram (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the bad faith but really this issue is not a project-wide problem but limited to very few editors and A Man In Black's inflating the issue. If you wish to persue this perhaps pulling up all the cases in question would help. I think you'll find there were indeed newbies doing this besides 1 or 2 old hands. In any case A Man In Black intervened it was done so poorly that it created more drama than the riginal post ever could and not demonstratable damage has been shown in any of the posts. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above comment by Apoc2400 is another indication of the serious problem of the ARS as a separate group, where only the similar-minded incrowd is welcome. Other posts on this page highlight the same issue, and e.g. this edit summary from today[9] by an ARS regular is another example: "And are you even in the Rescue Squadron? Stop messing with our FAQ" (on a revert of my first and only edit to this FAQ). Together with the comments by Ikip, wanting to topic ban one critic and directing other critical editors to other Wikiprojects, it is very clear that the most active members of this project no longer want it to be an open, collaborative project where all opinions are welcome. Wikipedia does not work with "members-only" sections, and having groups for like-minded people only, especially in contentious areas like deletions, does in the end not improve Wikipedia, even if the work of many members of the project on individual articles should be encouraged. Removing the project-like aspects (which cause the problems and generate very little benefit) and keeping the process-like aspects (including the rescue tag, obviously) will in my opinion have the best results. Fram (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are trying to say about me. I do not think I am a member of ARS, though I have worked on articles listed for rescue occasionally. From the few times I visited project talk pages, all I remember is "A Man In Black" and a few others trying to start fights. Also, how is ARS useful for canvassing? If I want a list of AfDs to vote keep in, there is a perfectly fine one at WP:AfD. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, if you divide it into the project on one side, and a "few deletionists who hang out there and pick fights with everyone", then you are affirming the divisiveness and the separation between ARS and supposed deletionists. As for the canvassing: if you know or think that at talk page X, you will find a number of people more inclined to vote keep at AfD (or other) debates, then a message there may sway a debate. When people start posting messages with the current tally (keeps vs. delets) in a specific debate, it's hard not to see that as blatant canvassing. When discussions are specifically mentioned at the ARS talk page, and some of the more talk page active members of the ARS then appear at the AfD and vote keep, without any improvements made, then the impression of sucessful canvassing gets even worse. Fram (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's your POV, as has been pointed out numerous times. Empty !votes are routinely ignored. Ideally they would !vote more substantietively but this goes back to the idea that even if this were an actual problem, no harm seems to be occuring except teh empty !voters are wasting their time. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I know that you have answered to different posts by me on talk pages to state that they are my POV. Duh, what else would it be? Your posts indicating that the problem is down to Ikip and AMiB, and that AMib has gotten worse while Ikip has improved, is your POV. What is gained by stating that? It does not help the discussion in any way, but only serves to label someones posts as biased, untrustworthy, ignorable. Could you stick to presenting your opinion without adding labels to everything? As for the fact that the posts should have no effect: often when an AFD is closed against the majority (or even a strong minority) of the !votes, people come to the closing admin's page or DRV demanding a correction since the closure was against consensus. By rallying or attempting to rally more !votes, this gets encouraged. Yes, admins must close discussions based on strength of arguments, not on votecount, but this is not understood or accepted by many editors. And the bad faith that is sometimes assumed by ARS members like you (e.g. here) doesn't help either. Fram (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, the nominator has been blocked for nine days edit warring, an edit war which zeinth was posting this MFD. Many of the editors here supported AMIB actions, and condemned me for bring up his continued disruption on the WT:ARS page. Several editors continue to condem me, supporting this blocked editor, even after the block. None of these editors have mentioned the long behavioral quotes that AMIB has posted in the nomination. So if we want to talk about really bad and disruptive beahavior, lets focus on AMIB, not the two sentences of another editor here. Ikip (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reform per Masem. Keep tagging and rescue advice functionality, remove membership aspects. Nobody in their right mind can argue that a properly targetted and used coordinated rescue effort is bad for the project, but equally nobody can argue that membership of this project has not become the focus of a negative battleground mentality. MickMacNee (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "[N]obody can argue that membership of this project has not become the focus of a negative battleground mentality"? Actually everyone can as there is no evidence that the membership acts as one or even that those signed up are actively involved or even agree with one another. That negative battleground mentality really is limited to one editor - the nom. Most others expressing criticism have been much more reasonable. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aim of the project is helpful to Wikipedia: saving articles that would get deleted if no improvements are made. If the mentality of some of the members is a problem, then they should get RFC'd. Esperanza was deleted because of its bureaucratic setup of its member structure. I see no such problem here. Don't deleted an entire project just because individual users are acting like WP:DICKS. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Processify per Masem. There is a pretty significant selection bias in which articles have the ((rescue)) tag applied, but a community-based filter is in accord with the aims of this project. There would still be the tag, a description, and an associated talkpage (which ideally would not be abused), and anything useful in the project pages could be merged to the deletion process pages (e.g. WP:Before). Getting people to show due diligence before nominating or discussing an article is a bit more difficult, but snide remarks and votestacking are more likely to promote factionalization than actually help. If kept in its present form, RfC/U would not be unreasonable as a next step. WP:POSTPONE (basically an extended prod) is an interesting idea, but userfying is better except that people are more likely to run across a postponed article; on the other hand, debatably notable topics are pretty low traffic anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RFC (but don't just rely on the bold text here; read my comments). I don't believe it's generally useful or productive to use MFD to shut down things like this, unless there's no other alternative - in the case of Esperanza and the Association of Members' Advocates, the alternatives had been exhausted, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The best solution, albeit bureaucratic, is to push an RFC as a final alternative solution, and get people to the table to participate in it.

Having said that, I confess that I see large problems with ARS, and I don't honestly anticipate them being solved this way. (To Benjiboy: before you challenge this statement, please read the MfD over, and see how many of your fellow project members genuinely see Wikipedia as a battleground between Good inclusionists and Evil less-than-inclusionists - and how many of them seem to have a Masada mentality about it). I advocate for an RFC because the ARS has produced good works, and has among them people who could continue to do so - it's not just a bureaucratic formality, though I fear it will amount to one.

If RFC fails, I would support a modified form of Masem's proposal, replacing the current wikiproject with a process page and tools that anyone could use, but without membership or spamming campaigns. If this is done. it's best to Esperanzify the current wikiproject (e.g., replace it with an essay explaining why we don't have any content there) and start the successor page elsewhere. Otherwise, it will just attract some of the badness we saw after the Esperanza and AMA deletions, with well-meaning editors trying to resurrect the original flawed project. Lest anyone see fit to respond by accusing me of being "a deletionist" - whatever one might mean by that - I invite a preeemptive review of my contributions to see how many articles I have provided the sole references for. If I'm a deletionist (or an inclusionist, immediatist, eventualist - anything other than "editor" or "encyclopediast"), then it is only because the term is an empty slur - which, in fact, is very nearly how I actually feel about such terms. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to mistake that even though there may be some die-hard inclusionists that the project is aiding and abetting them in any way. ARS isn't enabling anything but rescuing content. Wikiprojects don't reject people if their views lean one way or another nor do we dismiss someone's ideas because they differ from our own. We neither condone nor condemn inclusionists or deletionists but simply try to find common ground. People aren't encouraged or forced to wear badges of affiliation. We are all Wikipedians. We have some vociferous deletionists commenting as well. Does this allow banning them too. No. If an editor's behaviours cross the line they are addressed. Civilly like most admins would, instead A Man In Black crossed into intimidation and was edit-warring. I guess we were foolish for putting up with it. Does any of this mean this Wikiproject is at fault for those editors' actions, nope. Is there any evidence this project encouraged and enabled inclusionism abuse, nope. Do I still think absent of any evidence of harm this is yet another abuse of process to disrupt this project? Yes. And sadly I'm used to it. The last RfC was started by myself because A Man In Black ... wait for it ... was edit-warring. Every MfD, RfC and TfD regarding this project has been full of alarming statements that amount to a lot of hot air. Are there some actual issues, sure but nothing cooler heads can't find creative solutions for that may actually do some good. I personally have little care or interest in the ongoing wiki-battles but from my perspective the few editors on ARS I think are inclusionists have been dialing down any problems on our talkpage while A Man In Black has been dialing up; ergo - they have not been the problem over the last few months. Frankly anyone who wants to constructively contribute is more than welcome. -- Banjeboi 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

motion to close the nominator has been blocked for 9 days for edit warring. This MfD was a continuation of that edit warring, created less than two hours after his fourth 3RR. See: User:A Man In Black reported by User:Ikip (Result: 9 days ) Ikip (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that you use the same tactic here as used on WT:ARS that got us here. Jack Merridew 14:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Pot, Kettle. "Ikip you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block". I've never seen any discussion shut down because the nominator was later blocked for 3rr. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed - another case of WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR, attempting to discredit any debate by discrediting the nom. pablo_hablo. 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bad behavior of the nominator is very relevant: First: When the nominator in question is blocked for 9 days for edit warring, in which this MFD was a contuation of this edit warring, and the nomiantor has been blocked more than any of the other 1,600 admins.

RE: "another case of WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR, attempting to discredit any debate by discrediting the nom."

Second: AMIB adds several comments of ARS members, making this a behavioral issue, then it is very, very apt to discuss the nominator's bad behavior. I don't see these editor who have a history of edits opposed to the spirit of ARS condemning AMIB for his behavorial comments.

RE: "Ikip you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block". I've never seen any discussion shut down because the nominator was later blocked for 3rr. "

Notice how I am still able to edit, and AMIB is not, also that at least 3 admins supported the block. When this MFD is a contiuation of the edit war, then it is apt to close it.

RE: "Ironic that you use the same tactic here as used on WT:ARS that got us here."

What tactics? Defending against AMIB disruptive edit warring? AMIB was blocked, not me. Ikip (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen no one say that wanton deletion is "good" nor that the principle of improving articles to keep them is "bad." The issue, as I see it, is whether the current incarnation which has the potential of seeming to use !votes in abundance is best serving the encyclopedia (I say this as a person who !votes over 85% of the time for "keep.") Clearly the current "squadron" has real and significant problems which, it appears to many, would be better addressed by establishing an orderly process than the current system. And, I suggest, there is a reasonable consensus here that the current system does not work as well as it should. Collect (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up and start over The concept of this project is welcome and they have done some fine work in the past. That being said, what has become of this in recent months is nothing short of corruption. The canvassing spree was the straw that broke the camel's back. After that I consider this project fundamentally irredeemable. One need only to glance through the talk pages of the organization and be active at AfD to see that this group is indeed heavily biased and most of what goes on with it has nothing to do with adding sources and everything to do with casting "keep" votes en masse and influencing policy/guidelines to support looser polices of inclusion. Most often when an editor tags an article for rescue that very editor makes little to no effort to "save" the article himself. It isn't the mission that's the problem, it's the certain grouping of editors proclaiming the mission and the resulting walled garden where they find it ok to canvass everything remotely related to the AfD process and to take passing shots at "deletionists" in general.

The ARS tag should stay. Rescuers can get to these articles from the category that the tag places them in. Any rescue effort can be coordinated locally at the article's talk page or at the AfD itself. The central meeting ground of the project acts as the command bunker for the battleground atmosphere. Disband the group but keep the tags and their mission will live on without the drama. Perhaps a while from now when things settle down another group like this can be made and strictly monitered to keep it from getting out of control.

I also would support a community-wide RfC to look into this group, as has been proposed here. Them From Space 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one needed to discredit the nom, they did it to themselves. The constructive input they had to offer was heard the first time long long ago. It seems as if no changes but deleting this project will make some of its critics happy. Luckily more objective editors can witness for themselves that despite the alarmist pitch and the apparent host of inhospitible quotes used to demostrate the tone at the top. There is a lack of actual harm despite the repeated patronly "concern". This feels very much like the previous discussions where a simple "concern" of ARS turning into a battleground was brought to life by ... the very people who were so very bothered that such a thing would happen. If someone is causing problems we don't blame the various wikiprojects they are affiliated with nor do we expect "someone else" to fix a problem. Address the user directly, civilly and help them see why their actions are counter-productive. User conduct is handled on a user level. If you have evidence this is a project-wise issue then let's review whatever evidence you have so we all can check it out to see for ourselves. -- Banjeboi 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themfromspace, fitting that you should quote AMIB essay, this earlier version is more expressive as his true feelings on saving articles, showing that his editing behavior, like yours, is completly opposite of the spirit of ARS.

RE: "No one needed to discredit the nom, they did it to themselves."

This MFD is a contiuation of an edit war by an editor who was blocked for edit warring for 9 days. Themfromspace and the now blocked AMIB have actively hounded me since Feburary.

Your continued support of this editor makes your own behavior suspect. Like the other editors above, you condem those who bring up AMIB edit history, yet are silent when AMIB quotes several editors above. Having you decide the future of ARS is like spammers deciding what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam should or should not do. Ikip (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never hounded you at all. I have asked you several times nicely to stop canvassing and that has been the only interaction with you in months. Your bad faith assumptions are astounding. Them From Space 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is following all of the rules, and other editors bring ANI's and suggest RFCs against the editor, again, when there is no breaking of the rules, this is hounding. You have actively supported many of the tactics of AMIB, and editor who is now blocked for 9 days for disruption and edit warring. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never supported any of his "tactics" at the ARS page, heck I've never even commented once at that page. I suggested RfCs against you for reasons totally unrelated to why AMIB is blocked. None of this has anything to do with this discussion. Please stop with your bad faith assumptions as to why I'm here, this is the second time I'm asking you. You're just making yourself look bad. Them From Space 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why such MfDs as this and potential RfCs are disruptive if anything. All we have here is unproductive time not spent actually improving articles, but instead back and forth allegations that only raise tensions. This discussion should be speedily closed and everyone should get back to or start helping to improve articles. Isn't that what we are supposed to be here for, compiling a collection of articles, not a collection of discussions? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as historical, although I'm a member of this project, it now seems to serve no useful purpose that could not be addressed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Looking over the project pages, I have often been struck by the uncollaborative and insular attitude common in the project's discussions about AfDs. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to nonsense up top

Let me offer some examples of the attitude this project has engendered.

First off, I was making the same case long before I joined the Rescue Squadron. The only thing the Squadron does, is make it easier for me to find articles that have potential of saving, instead of having to sort through the many uncategorized nominations. I have today added in my second Rescue tag ever to an article, I previously just busy working with articles others had found, or on my own, not need help at finding references. So quoting me, and somehow incinerating that the project made me this way, or that everyone that joins is like me(and it shouldn't matter if we are or not), doesn't make any sense at all. And honestly now, how many people trying to get rid of us, have had articles they wanted to delete, saved by our efforts? Sour grapes. I'm thinking its a fair percentage of the deletes here. Dream Focus 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag historical the idea of a project to improve articles which may be deleted isn't inherently bad, and maybe something on these lines could succeed. However the current project has by and large degenerated into a lobby of people who oppose the existing deletion processes. Many of the comments of members on this page make this more obvious to me. Hut 8.5 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The project is an excellent idea and, from what I've seen, usually lives up to its goals, which apparently even the nominator admits are valuable. When I've looked in on the Squadron recently, it has usually been a mess of argument, which has the result of derailing it from its goals. This is not a reason to delete it, but to address the causes of that derailment, and to do what is necessary to stop individual editors whose only purpose at the project seems to be to create these endless, distracting arguments. Dekkappai (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Processify (is that the word?), or Delete, remove membership definitely. At this point, most articles relate to one or more active projects. Many of those projects have now begun using Wikipedia:Article alerts to help them keep up with, among other things, requests for deletion. Considering that a lot of these articles are going to be primarily related to rather specific subjects, I would personally very much think that this project's goals would likely be better served if those editors who actively take part in its actions were to devote more attention to the articles related to their subjects of knowledge/expertise. While there would still be a few articles which do not fall within the scope of any active WikiProjects, and those articles may be seen as being sufficient cause for the group to continue, right now I have to honestly question whether the current organizational structure really helps the group achieve its goals, or whether it actually gets in the way of achieving its goals to a degree, by providing a central sounding board for possibly irrelevant commentary and criticism. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work primarily in my subjects of expertise. Or rather, my primary subject of expertise, as a librarian, is to source citations for whatever article needs it. I rely on the ARS process to pull out from the mass of AfDs those worthy of a second look, then I research the hell out of them until it's something worthy of keeping; or, less often, if the rescue tagger was wrong, I find no sources and it gets deleted. The project discussion pages don't get in my way in the slightest, but without the project tools I would be severely hampered. --Zeborah (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - extremely useful project page. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - what we need are articles, properly sourced, well written. Deletion is not the way to achieve this, ARS is. Some articles evolve over time, with many contributors adding their knowledge. Rather than lose this, it is better to focus on what is there, re-write, and find sources to substantiate. This is why Wikipedia is unique. Some articles should be deleted, but some may be significant in a way that is not obvious to those who request deletion, without ARS something that is central to the philosophy of Wikipedia would be lost. Mish (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC —Travis ^talk 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) ~~Nuke It~~ per Black Kite - The popular perception of Wikipedia is that while it may be a good starting point for research, nothing one reads here should be taken at face value. There are are too many articles about too much crap that has no business being included in an encyclopedia. My personal standard is, would Britannica accept this subject? Unfortunately, there are those here who resist all efforts to decrapify the encyclopedia and who, apparently, prefer quantity over quality. This project has, unfortunately, become a magnet and gathering place for the anti-decrapificationists. —Travis ^talk 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've recently joined ARS, and have helped save several articles from deletion. I'd not have come across the articles otherwise, and I spent a good deal of time digging up sources that nominators had failed to find. I'm not an inclusionist, and making the ARS a scalp in the deletionist/inclusionist war is pointless. By the same argument, we should delete AfD, as it's full of deletionists. Obviously not. If admins closing deletion discussions remember that AfD is not a vote, then neither inclusionists nor deletionists can get traction just by shouting Keep or Delete. If everyone spent more time looking for sources in good faith rather than arguing, both AfD and ARS would be more fruitful. Fences and windows (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark historical or convert to process as suggested by Masem - and several someones who are getting out the torhces and pitchforks for AMiB need to step away from the medeival implements. His 3RR block and his past disputes have no bearing on the merit if this Mfd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do if this is indeed the lastest effort to disrupt this Wikiproject which seems like it is as someone who has had to endure this. FWIW, i would feel the same regarding any Wikiproject. An admin starts bullying people and making bad faith accusations galore? Professing concern about edit-warring and battlegrounds and proceeds to make that come true by edit-warring? Sometimes we call a WP:Duck a duck. Over the past few months my suggestions for A Man In Black to act more civil have steadily become less subtle matching the continued behavioral problems. Did we have some "inclusionist" users who overstepped some lines? Possibly, but nothing civil discussion wouldn't have turned around. Instead they chose aggressive antagonism. When I learned he was an admin I was shocked. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they really don't. Just like your block for edit warring back in the day has nothing to do with whether your view has any weight here. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy of the thinnest sort - an ad homenem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and speedy close for the fourth time. I won't even waste the finger energy offering reasons, they've been explained in 3 previous Mfds and above in this one. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as historical or convert to process: the ARS is well past its sell-by date, having shifted from a group dedicated to improving articles to a group dedicated to keeping articles from being deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up, start over/RFC - I think a lot of detractors' concerns would evaporate if ARS "members" more consistently added sources/improvements to an article beyond simply placing a rescue tag (i.e. revamp the process so that slapping the tag is contingent also on adding a source or two) -- at a minimum, an effective way to (re)build good-faith that it isn't a "keep-at-all-costs" semi-project. Yes, that's more an issue on the "canvassing" side, and not so much the "!vote stacking" side -- but, I think the former is the one that engenders more frustration. Also, a dope slap for all y'all who did exactly what AMIB predicted vis-a-vis griping about him being "disruptive" or otherwise setting up personal straw-men. --EEMIV (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"too much crap" "Nuke it" "Blow it up" "Blow it up and start over" why do so many editors who tend to delete other editors contributions have so many violent and degrading words and have so little respect for other editors good faith contibutions? As A Nobody said: "The reality here is that the even if anyone honestly believes the ARS has any issues, these are symptoms and not causes." As Fences and Windows just said, "If editors nominating articles actually paid any attention to WP:BEFORE, ARS wouldn't be needed, but so long as perfectly notable topics with abundant sources are being put up for deletion, there'll be a place for ARS." Again, having many of these editors decide the future of ARS is like spammers deciding what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam should or should not do.
The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame, a fraction of the hundreds of articles that editors have sourced and saved, shows that the ARS does a lot of good valuable work in improving wikipedia. A Nobody wrote above about several articles that we have all helped save recently. ARS was written about in Wall Street Journal, The New York Review of books, and The New York Times, how many other wikiprojects can make that claim?
As the Spanish PC Actual magazine states: "Pruning may be necessary, but excessive heat is damaging to the project. Fortunately, there are also supporters of inclusion, which show the spirit of Wikipedia, in a group called ARS (Article Rescue Squadron)."[10] Ikip (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last quote is the emphasis of the problem that is being addressed here. ARS is not about inclusion, it is about improving the encyclopedia by improving articles on the verge of deletion. It should not be connected in any way to inclusionism or the like. Unfortunately, the way members of it act at times treat it as an inclusionists fan club. There is no need for membership, only the process to keep the improvements going forward. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be able to focus on article improvement when editors have to keep playing games in needless discussions like this. How many articles could all of us have improved using the same amount of time and text as has gone into this MfD? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you are a founding member of WP:VG why does WP:VG have a membership? Why are you demanding that this group, which attempts to save many of the articles you attempt to merge, should not have those same priveleges? If we are going to delete the membership list of ARS, lets delete the membership list of WP:VG also?

When editors save an article it remains included on wikipedia. It is an inclusion on wikipedia. To say that ARS should not be connected to inclusion, is like saying WP:VG should not be involved in video games. Inclusion is central to the spirit of ARS. Ikip (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very significant difference between rescue articles to keep them included on WP, and the concept of inclusionism which requires editors to re-evaluate policy and guidelines to include more than what is presently typically kept; one is a well accepted process that very few have a problem with, the other is a point of view. ARS, because it has an infinite scope over all main space articles, cannot take the point of view of inclusionism but unfortunately (it must remain neutral as a group), time and time again the discussion on its talk page is about supporting inclusionism, whether it is canvassing those with "inclusionist" banners to join the group, or to try to promote WP:BEFORE, or the like. Doing that outside of being a member of ARS is certainly within the general allowances of WP, but as and with the support of ARS undernmines the group and leads to the previous example Esperanza. There should be no need for membership to ARS - every editor should be able to do that by a well-defined process to keep improving and including articles on the edge, and if editors want to discussion inclusionism, there are other venues that will not become battlegrounds to do so, but ARS cannot be that. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you and your friends discuss policy all the time on WP:VG, as do all wikiprojects. I guess your answer means that the project you help create, WP:VG, should continue to help shape policy and have memberships list? Other wikiprojects like wikiproject notability and wikiproject spam and all of the other maintanence projects have membership lists.

It seems incedibly unjust to single out ARS to follow rules which will censor and gag it. Rules which no other wikiproject follows, rules suggested and pushed by editors who have clashed with the ARS before, and support broader merge and/or deletion, such as yourself.

Re: Esperanza, see Colonel's comments above. For weeks when this argument about ARS was going on, no one could think of a project they could compare ARS too. Since AMIB put this project up for deletion, the final act in his weeks of edit warring before being blocked, he mentioned Esperanza, and it is the favorite word now of those editors who want to cripple ARS. Ikip (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to discuss policy that directly affects the rescuing of articles as part of ARS (such as the recent 7-day AFD extension), but discussing policy issues about inclusonism or anti-deletionism outside the scope of rescue (such as trying to make BEFORE a requirement) is out of the ARS scope; the problem is is that from watching ARS discussions, its members continue to jump over that line. This is not to gag ARS members from discussing this issues in proper venues as an interested editor, just not as an ARS member. Yes, it's a fine line that's difficult to avoid, and there's been enough warnings given already. The thing is, the "rescue" function should absolutely be part of WP's process, and there need not be a special membership club to do anything with it. I'm not asking to dismantle the rescue templates or its process, but only to avoid the behavioral problems that have occurred due to the thin line between fighting to retain inclusion of an article and the fight for inclusionism. It opens the entire process, makes it feel much less like a faction or cabal, and allows everyone to work at improvements. (And, you are very mistaken to call me a founding member of WP:VG, I'm active, but I certainly wasn't part of its foundation). --MASEM (t) 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"too much crap" "Nuke it" "Blow it up" "Blow it up and start over" why do so many editors who tend to delete other editors contributions have so many violent and degrading words and have so little respect for other editors good faith contibutions? - Personally, I enjoy aping Corporal Hicks from Aliens :-). Regardless, Ikip, I think one reason you may be bumping heads in this discussion is because of painting in broad strokes "editors who tend to delete other editors contributions", and them having "o many violent and degrading words" with "so little respect for other editors good faith contibutions" -- As a description either of deletionists (self-styled or otherwise) or simply people suggesting ARS needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, this is a lot of stone-throwing. If you're going to continue to actively respond to so many of the comments here, please try to focus on the underlying question of should ARS be deleted/archived, and set aside gripes about inclusion policies, rampant deletionists, etc. A Nobody has taken flack for being an uber-responder at AfDs -- but, to his credit, he usually avoids disparaging comments about editors; on this page, you're similarly addressing many people's opinions about the subject, but perhaps have/will find counterproductive such vociferous and broad disparagement of dissenters, rather than of their thinking. --EEMIV (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep....As a member of ARS, I strongly support its survival. I especially agree with User:Dream Space. (and User:Schmidt).... I use ARS to find articles worthy of the Encyclopedia. I have voted to delete articles that were "junk". The other ARS editors that I run across are insightful and do their best to uplift and improve articles that may be in need of some "tender, loving care." This fourth attempt to shut down ARS seems to be more of an "I'm gonna shut you down" than it is a serious attempt to improve the encyclopedia. ARS is a valuable tool that warrants praise rather than critisism. --Buster7 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as historical. I wasn't going to comment on this until I saw that A Man in Black was blocked, and I realize that at this point commenting is futile. Nevertheless, if Ikip, Benjiboi, A Nobody, Dream Focus, and a couple of others could be extracted from ARS so that it could fulfill its mission without the continual attempts to expand its remit and to cast as evil deletionists all those who dispute individual members' attempts to obfuscate AfD discussions (without actually providing relevant sources to support their opinions), I would have no problem with its existence; but at this point there seems no possibility of that's happening. All things considered, the squadron constitutes a net detriment, rather than an advantage, to Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me Deor, but I am GREATLY offended by THIS bring tossed into a slop bucket as a "net detriment" to the project. Shall I leave? I do have a life away from these pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for the others being called to task here but personally I'm quite insulted. I have never worked to cast as evil the deletionists but have objected to the mischaracterization of all ARS participants in any way as other than Wikipedians. You'll note that my "expanding" of ARS to include TfDs was discussed and when A Man In Black edit-warred on it? I started an RfC do it could be discussed if it was within the scope. Consensus was that it was. Please don't pretend that something has happenned here when it did not. There remains little evidence of actual harm yet overwhelming evidence of efforts to not only rescue articles but also to address preventing poor articles form ever being created, from new users being turned off from contributing and from AfD processes being abused. It's hardly our job to fix these issues but brain-storming solutions seems like a win-win especially if ideas benefit the entire encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben has always been consistent. I have made some big mistakes at ARS, but Ben has always been steadfast (and smarter) in what the ARS is and is not, walking the thin line between saving articles and inclusionism. Ikip (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hope both sides stop being idiots on the talk page. Rebecca (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An obvious bad faith nom; AMIB has had an ongoing conflict with Ikip over this. Jtrainor (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being such an obvious bad faith nom I'm sure you wouldn't mind refuting its arguments, then? Just to give your !vote some credibility? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiate RFC with reasoning that parallels Deor's. The ARS is a noble and good concept, and the ARS minus about six of its members could do a lot of good. The only way I know to forcibly separate those six from the project is an RFC.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling for six members to be topic banned, right after you tried to get AMIB (the nominator) unblocked for 9 days of edit warring at ARS. AMIB's final edit war tactic was this MfD. When I talked about a topic ban of AMIB, editors who supported this blocked editor were adamently against it. When I talked about AMIB's beahvior here, AMIB's supporters said I shouldn't, despite his long quotes of ARS members, and talk of behavior in the nomination. Lets see what their reaction to 6 members begin booted is now. There are so many blatant contradictions here. Ikip (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, that's exactly the kind of comment that both fails to resolve this discussion and simultaneously flares tempers. What kind of response do you think the above comment would elicit? I appreciate your protection of ARS and even your gripe with the nominator, but please cool down a bit. --EEMIV (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EEMIV, "Blow it up, start over/RFC" and "I appreciate your protection of ARS"? I am confused, which is it? Ikip (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not either/or. I think ARS needs to be overhauled -- but I'm empathetic of your perspective/beliefs, and can understand why someone(s) would bristle at the suggestion that it needs such a thorough revamp/RfC/audit/whatever. --EEMIV (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I called for an RFC, not a topic ban: I think a solution for how to preserve the good parts of ARS and eliminate the disruptive parts is called for. I certainly have my list of people that I think cause problems, but you shouldn't believe that it's exactly the same list as Deor's. Your insistence that this is somehow a continuation of an edit-war is odd. AMIB certainly has a goal, but he was blocked after he stopped trying to get there by edit-warring and tried this as a tactic. Being blocked after the misbehaviour has stopped goes against policy, which is why I objected. If he had been blocked 25 hours earlier, I would have stayed quiet. There's not any prohibition against having a goal: his mistake was not changing tactics the first time people started forcing the changes into the FAQ, and refusing to respect his reasons for asking that the changes that were made be removed.—Kww(talk) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the ARS minus about six of its members could do a lot of good" this sure sounds like a topic ban to me. Next you will start saying that you appreciate my protection of ARS, while simultaneously arguing that ARS should be blown up. AMIB's mistake was edit warring continously for the past several months on ARS. Ikip (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't duck from that: I suspect that some combination of topic bans and other restrictions is needed. What you seem to not understand on the other issues is that if I separate AMIB's position from his problematic behaviour, he seems to have been correct on every issue on which you and he have disagreed. If ARS members had listened to him instead of doing everything they could to drown him out, things would be going much better. It seems to have degenerated into a situation where everything AMIB did was reverted by reflex, not by reason.—Kww(talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The behavioral issues can probably be ironed out. Faced with these sort of scorched earth tactics is it really that surprising that some so-called inclusionists feel embattled? I feel like the description of the problem -- frustrated inclusionists -- didn't include a very good analysis of how that culture was created and who's at fault. --JayHenry (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Mark Historical/Nuke from Orbit, whatever it takes. Nothing but headaches come from this "project". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comes from an account that claims it has a has a "mission" to delete articles and will "never" argue to keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To provide context: that first diff hinges on deleting articles that are for non-notable subjects, not some crusade to delete things at will. As for the second diff, word "never" doesn't show up anywhere; it is dishonest to put it in quotes. Furthermore, the actual assertion is that Doctorfluffy doesn't participate in AfDs where he thinks "keep" should be the outcome. But, most importantly: this is yet another comment that addresses the editor rather than the actual subject, should ARS be deleted/archived. --EEMIV (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It demonstrates that most of those saying to delete here are biased accounts that have never done anything to rescue articles themselves. Some mean good here, sure, but others are either hypocrites or those with agendas who are in no real position to talk down to the rest of us. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It should not be surprising that many of those who want to see the ARS closed are 'deletionists', self-described or otherwise, any more than it should be surprising that many of those who want to see it kept are 'inclusionists' who generally try to get articles kept. Both sides have agendas here, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep --An obvious pointy and disruptive nomination by a blocked user. --J^mundo 05:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, "I'm voting keep because I don't like the nominator." —Travis ^talk 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm voting keep because this nomination was made solely to provide a forum for disruption. --J^mundo 15:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty long, detailed and damning nomination for such a purpose, don't you think. Your argument still boils down to I like it, and not the nominator. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument boils down to guidelines but go ahead and ignore all the rules and continue this discussion started by a disruptive, uncivil, and blocked sysop. --J^mundo 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I suppose you're free to not bother refuting the nomination. Should make for a convincing argument. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all project pages and templates, except for barnstars which can continue to be handed out with rewording of the citation to remove references to ARS. Ironically, this discussion is doing wonders to show exactly what is wrong with ARS. It is a cabal of inclusionist idealism rabidly opposed to criticism of itself or of any articles it takes up as a cause. It is no secret that the rescue tag is used for passive canvassing; I'm guilty of doing it myself once. It seems to be doing very little of the work it was intended to do (User:Ikip's work on merging bilateral relations stubs notwithstanding) and a lot of editwarring and !vote stacking using flimsy criteria, some of which doesn't even make it into the article up for discussion even after the discussion is closed as keep. The elitist take on ARS is further perpetuated by being the only project whose tag goes on the front of the article; whereas some similar projects would react in response to a previously-created template, such as ((cleanup)), being added to a page, ARS created its own. With so much time and effort being put into endless, frequently hostile debates, and little into rescuing, one has to wonder why the project continues to exist. Those truly interested in article rescue need never set foot into an ARS debate; they go to AfD, or the various Deletion Sorting pages if they want a narrower focus, pick a topic they have knowledge of, and work on it. ARS has run its course and failed. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is THIS, THIS, or THIS to be considered indicators of being in an "elitist inclusionist cabal"? Gee... and here I was thinking I was improving the project. Sorry, but I am offended by your conclusions. If you have a problem with certain members, then deal with them... but it makes no sense to burn down the house because you think that easier than doing a bit of cleaning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This MfD discussion should be allowed to run longer than normal, owing to the visible !vote stacking by ARS members, some with rather flimsy arguments, simply for the sake of saying keep. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm... Put an MfD template on a popular project page, what do you think you will get? We shouldn't have to write tomes to keep this, it's obvious that there are many editors who want to cooperate in this way, and only a few who want to shut it down. --Abd (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, all that is obvious from this project is some concentrated bad blood. I'd hardly call it cooperative. Or useful. Or necessary. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Abd has associated with ARS for a while, including the period where it was actually constructive. That former period of productivity is one of the reasons I tend to think an RFC over the legitimate scope and activities of such a wikiproject is preferable to trying to shut it down via MFD.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above comes from an account that has been making indiscriminately delete votes across multiple discussions. For example, this "Kill it with fire!" hyperbole appeared in near copy and paste across multiple of these discussions: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the underlying nature of those AfDs -- bilateral international relations -- was essentially the same, a near-identical AfD argument seems just fine. But, more importantly, you're again addressing the editor/his habits rather than addressing the topic germane now: should ARS be deleted/archived. Also, please do not once again slip in to your old AfD habit of badgering/responding to every dissenting perspective. It seems Ikip has let up; please follow his lead. --EEMIV (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the top edit summaries like "Kill it with fire" reveal an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" mentality and if someone is going to call out the ARS for argument style, it should be pointed out that the copy and paste and hyperbolic nature of that account's style is such that we should give it the weight it merits. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the community insisted I not use cut-and-paste arguments for AfDs about cut-and-paste stubs I see it only as equal that others give a decent rationale in their arguments to keep here. Also, I am not the first, nor will be the last, to use humour in edit summaries. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It reflects an IDONTLIKEIT attitude toward those AfDs' subjects; not seeing similar hyperbole here, it is a moot point. And, again, this is not the venue for BlueSquadron's or any other individual editors' (rabid delitionist, ARS member, or whomever) editing habits; rather, it's for the ARS project. BlueSquadron's hyperbole, or other editors' individual habits, have no bearing on the subject at hand. If you see someone slipping away from that focus, let them wander; please don't contribute toward pursuing such tangents. Lastly, as you know, and as you've been asked to avoid, "You brought up Aspect X of subject Y, so I'm going to bring up Aspect X-ish of subject Z" doesn't particularly go over well/effectively at _fD. --EEMIV (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does go toward the pointlessness and disruptive nature of this Mfd by showing how it is little more than a venue for escalating rather than decreasing tensions among editors and rather a time drain from rescuing articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination, in a nutshell. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All alleged "ARS problems" stem from people on both sides attacking the other as "deletionist" or "inclusionist" cabal, thus overshadowing the purpose of this project and its use. But name-calling, attacks or anything by a few members of ARS, as well as a few outspoken critics like the nominating user here, do not change the fact that the project is very useful and that the huge majority of members of ARS keep out of such dramas and do a good job rescuing articles nominated for deletion. Yes, there are problems of incivility all around and a whole lot of users seem to think it's a wise idea to call ARS an "inclusionist cabal" but nothing of it is a problem with the project itself, just with some members of it and some users outside it. I think the correct way to deal with the problems is to deal with those users directly and that should be done much stricter. Regards So Why 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have any of those who want to scrap the ARS ever themselves: 1. Found sources that demonstrated notability of an article at AfD? 2. Helped improve an article at AfD so that it was rescued? 3. Improved an article instead of nominating it for deletion? 4. Thanked an editor for rescuing an article they nominated for deletion? If not, why not?

As for comparisons to Esperanza, it was a totally different project, and irrelevant to this discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason a comparison to Esperanza may be irrelevant to this discussion, so too are the editing habits of those suggesting ARS be scrapped. If the insinuation is that they haven't done things you've enumerated, you're way off base. Again, please focus on the question of should ARS be deleted/archived; baiting folks on either side has, surprise, become a juvenile distraction. --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EEMIV, you have said above not to comment to everyone with whom one disagrees, but you have now commented to multiple editors in this thread as well. Perhaps those of us who have commented multiple times now should all take a step back now? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EEMIV: I have, several times; a Russian folksong and a beer game come to mind. Both came to my attention on Vfd, and I researched and found sourcing and after I did, the articles were kept. There were others. I should add the sources were RS; not utter crap like geocities and blogs which some have used recently to "save" at least one article I've seen on Afd in the past couple of days. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you & I are not the only ones. --EEMIV (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Too much of a promotion of votestacking, a little group/squadron is not needed for article rescue Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 4[edit]

Okay, major humor points to the clown that put a ((rescue)) template on the ARS page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although an edit such as this [17] just before attempting this [18] is certainly not a nice thing to do. Tothwolf (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer, there was no need to call anyone a "clown". This lack of civility is what has made many AfD discussions fractious. Adding the rescue tag is ironic. Fences and windows (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly, since there's really no way to 'rescue' the ARS page via sourcing or fixing it up to adhere to editing policies. This would be an incorrect way to use the tag. DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as sources have recently been added to the page. For example, I cited the O'Reilly book, Wikipedia: the missing manual, which includes the ARS in its chapter about deletion of articles. This adds to other external sources which reference the ARS. To delete the page would therefore be unhelpful to readers of these works. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be “KEEP, Notable WikiProject.” — Jack Merridew 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many would probably argue that this is an incorrect use of MfD as well. Tothwolf (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, that's silly. It would just give folks like O'Reilly something more to right about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim

I'm pretty sure he used clown to imply someone who attempts to be humorous. This lack of AGF is what has made many AfD discussions factious. ÷seresin 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look for “I helped Rescue the Article Rescue Squadron” badges and “Thank you for helping to Save the Article Rescue Squadron” talk-spam. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and topic ban individual contributors from AfD discussions - ARS works as an idea to improve articles up for deletion, but fails when it becomes simple vote-stacking at AfD. AfDs have become unnecessarily fractious contests rather than discussions based on policy and guidelines. This AfD will probably be the last one I participate in unless something changes. There is really no way to argue against things like this. Individual members of ARS, who repeatedly make keep arguments that are not based on guidelines or policy, or are disrupting AfD discussions by arguing against guidelines/policy should be banned from participation at AfD. That would place responsibility for actions back on individual users, where it belongs, and let ARS do what it is intend to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)changing opinion based on criticisms raised by DGG & MQS Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "keep", but I do not not see any logic in telling me I can either improve an article OR comment at AfD... but not do both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what I meant. ARS members should be free to improve articles and participate in AfD discussions. I am proposing that editors who are consistently problematic are banned from AfDs due to their disruptive behaviour (and not because they are part of the ARS). I believe similar bans have been enacted for other project areas such as RFAs. Sorry if I wasn't clear initially. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that would make about as much sense as banning people who have a strongly deletionist POV from AfD. Or at least banning everyone who makes a few poorly-thought out nomination from ever nominating anything else. Everyone is worth hearing. DGG (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing topic bans for a few mistakes. I am speaking about continued, repeated behaviour. If someone continually nominated articles for deletion based on frivolous reasons, they would eventually be blocked (or possibly topic banned, but most likely blocked). Why should continually posting keep arguments that are not based on guidelines or policy be any different? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading somwhere that Wikipedia refers to itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (not being flippant, just ironic). Bans are only for the worst of the worst of the worst offenders... those who absolutely refuse to recognize community or consensus. And even then, there are stories about editors who were banned from the project entirely, that were allowed back and subsequently became respected administrators. Even Wikipedia accepts that there is no one who is past redemption. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be dramatic about it. A topic ban isn't a banishment from Wikipedia, just a community decision that an editor is proscribed from editing certain topics or areas. Both topic and complete bans are appealed and overturned from time to time. I think that there are some editors whose participation in AfDs is unproductive to the point of disruption. Refusal to accept community norms (i.e., policies and guidelines) is generally cause for blocking or topic banning, why should AfD be any different? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not drama... irony. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such might cause greater factionalism, as those on either side of an discussion might be encouraged to claim their "opponents" to be worth topic-banning for lack of agreement. It is those discussions, even the ones that become slightly heated, that form consensus... and even that is not permananent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. It was a mistake to have mentioned topic bans at all here - there's no reason to tie them to the fate of ARS and my suggestion seems to have been misinterpreted. It was never my intention to suggest that they would be used except in extreme cases, much like topic bans in other areas. I am withdrawing my comment entirely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you have the best of intentions with your comment. But I do agree that perceived problems with individual editors needs to be kept differentiated from perceptions about the ARS as a whole and what good the 440+ can do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what a deeply sad display. What this repeatedly trying to delete a project which aims to improve encyclopedia articles has to do with building an encyclopedia, I don't know. T L Miles (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this has been detailed in the mammoth of tl;dr text above, or if it is on an ARS page somewhere. Does anybody know how many pages have been tagged with ((rescue)), and how many of those were deleted at AfD and how many were kept? Also, could anybody provide several recent examples of the best work at rescued articles (done after tagging by ARS members, mind)? The general impression I have gotten in the past is that ARS is not a beacon for new sources to be found, but a beacon for keeps. I'd genuinely like to see just how many articles have been actually improved before voting here. ÷seresin 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt someone with lots of free time will come up with the statistics. For me, I only keep track of the articles I have rescued as an example to others of what can be done with patience, hard work, and understanding of what Wikipedia requires. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add some context to the current debate, there have been two recent mass deletion nominations of articles which have raised tensions, these being the bilateral relations articles - some of which were rescued - and the M*A*S*H episode articles. Many articles at AfD were flagged for rescue. The debates about these articles was sometimes quite heated. Here are some rescued articles from the last couple of weeks that I know about: List of African American neighborhoods; Rusty Ryan; Sean Power (actor); Lakshmi Menon; Leyden ball; PureVolume; Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations; German-Libyan relations; Liahavichy Castle. I've just had a go at rescuing Moll Dyer. In all cases real work went into the rescues. Fences and windows (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've posted a note on the talk page about why I think people talking about there having been 4 nominations in this case is pretty irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as Historical and retire this. It is little more than a cover for canvassing. Uncle G's comments above are worth considering in closing this. Eusebeus (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see more articles being improved since the ARS began, & I see somewhat fewer improvable ones passed over. I still see many that could be improved if enough people would work on them & consequently get deleted. As for the stuff that needs to get deleted, it still does. The main problem with ARS is that too many people have joined who have contributed only their good wishes, and not worked enough on articles. As uncle G commented, that's not helpful.

Let's be realistic: this is not an argument over the ARS. Everyone at least pretends to agree that it is good to save articles if possible. This argument sorts out the ones who mean it. DGG (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein showed a society where only those members of the commnunity that had themselves accepted and showed civic responsibilty and willingness to defend their country were allowed to become "citizens" and then "vote" in the making of its policies. Non-citizens might enjoy the advantages of community, but could not vote. I believe this harkens back to the time of the Roman Empire. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that theme really did mar that book. — Jack Merridew 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I got out of it was the wisdom of having members of a society show their dedication toward the betterment of that society before being allowed to vote in its policy making. Non-citizen members could enjoy all the benefits of that society and do pretty much anything they wanted... but in order to vote in the elections and forums that controlled the future of that society, they had to show a worthiness... much like in Wikipedia discussions where the opinions of SPA accounts are usually under greater scrutiny.. or where "drive-by" "as per" ivotes are not (usually) given the same weight or merit as those that offer reasoned and thought-out opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I stand with Jack to think that amounts to fascism. The normal definition of "responsible" is "supports me, at least sometimes" DGG (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as Historical - nice idea but the project has been (as others have commented) taken over by a small hardcore of disruptive editors intent on using it for canvessing and advancing a "deletionists are evil!" agenda. (That's my only comment, arse members can provide a TLDR answer but as I am not going to watchlist this page or reply it would be a waste of time.) --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC, or mark as historical, but it needs change. I'm all for rescuing encyclopedic articles (by my definition of course), and I don't mind the calling attention to savable or salvageable articles, but the current ARS seems too often to only work by rallying votes for AfDs. I don't know how best to walk the line between those two sides. It's possible that topic banning certain editors could help there, but I'm not informed enough to judge that. Amalthea 10:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am increasingly wondering if we should have some more stricter requirements for participation in AfDs, i.e. in order to comment in AfDs, editors must show evidence of understanding what goes into building articles, i.e. need at least a GA credit or two and/or to forbib weak "votes" (the WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments) rather than arguments in these discussions and definitely requiring real evidence of the participants as having shown that they spent time looking for sources and/or trying to improve the articles before commenting per WP:BEFORE. In any event, while this unproductive and unnecessary discussion has gone on, consider something like Talk:Switzerland–Uruguay relations. A few of us who commented in the discussion (I being a member of ARS) also worked to improve the article, which was ultimately kept, but we also continued to work on the article beyond the AfD and now today it was listed as a DYK. An older example is Talk:Clover (creature), one rescued from deletion by various editors and now a good article. Instead of devoting so much time, space, and energy to frivolous XfDs, we need to be doing more to improve these articles, because we clearly can do it and the project would be all the better for it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well -- WP does not place requirements on editing articles, so placing one here would appear to be against policy. I am also mindful that it was not a "good clothing critic" who spotted the emperor's clothes, but a person who had no official expertise :(. In each AfD, the person closing has a strong obligation not to count !votes, but to weigh the arguments, and, IMHO, to see if the specific argument for deletion was shown to be properly applied. All that, however, does not alter the problem which ought to be addressed. Does the ARS cause problems to WP and, if so, how should we best address the other problem of inapt AfDs? Collect (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical: the concept of an article rescue squadron is brilliant as a concept, but as proven, horrifically flawed in practice. A bunch of editors committing to trying to improving an article is a brilliant idea, but this isn't what the ARS seems to be. Instead of improvement, most articles just get ((rescue)) thrown onto it and no work taken into improvement. The ARS has also been an instrumental part in amplifying the inclusionist/deletionist dispute so much that anyone who doesn't want every article kept is anti-Wikipedian. Article improvement doesn't need a great orange tag on every AfD'd page; if you can improve the page, ((sofixit)). If you can't, then is it suitable for Wikipedia? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sceptre, but that logic is horrifically flawed. In practice certain editors can and do tag for AfD / vote to delete dozens of potentially worthy articles a day. To save an article on an interesting but obscure subject can take hours of research, even if youre as gifted at finding sources as a Schmidt. Another practical issue is that admins are only human, and cant be expected to always keep an improved article if the vast majority of votes are delete. It would be most de-motivating if hours of work was frequently done in vain by lone rescuers. This is why rescuing has to be an collective endeavor, and why even though we generally all try to improve articles it often works best if one member does most of the work and others just make maybe minor improvements add their thoughts to the AfD . The ARS is needed to balance the fact it takes only 2 seconds to vote Delete: not notable and maybe 2 hours or more to improve an article. Its by existing as a project we’re best able to serve the community and our mission to present valuable information! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that's it's notable by virtue of being covered significantly in secondary sources is enough to save an article from deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (2nd nomination). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... but far, far too often that is not the result in practice. I have made just such an asserion at AfDs only to have the nominator and existing delete opinions state "No sources in the article... delete it" I have gotten into the habit of spending many hours digging and then improving articles... before and after opinining a keep... often to no avail as the closer in good faith counted the ivotes. Is not supposed to be that way, but the burden of work for admins is incredible. :( Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable has hit the nail on the head. Some editors - Ten Pound Hammer, for example - nominate a lot of articles (too many, in my opinion), and it takes much more time and effort to try to save an article once it has been nominated than it does to do a cursory web search and record "not notable, no sources, delete" vote. The ARS acts as a counter-balance to those who don't pay attention to WP:BEFORE, and acts to focus the efforts of those who want to rescue articles from deletion. I've sourced, improved and helped to save several articles that other ARS members flagged for rescue, which would likely have been deleted otherwise. ARS is not about saving every article - I've nominated articles for deletion, and I've argued for deletion of several articles flagged for rescue, as after a detailed search for sources I came up blank. Fences and windows (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would've thought that ARS' purposes is to save as many sources as possible. But really, a cursory sources check isn't that hard and doesn't need a tag or WikiProject to facilitate. Just add proof of notability to the AfD :) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that ARS' purpose was to save as many savable articles as possible, by adding sources to the article rather than mentioning them in the AfD. That certainly seems to be the most useful thing to do. pablo_hablo. 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I usually have to do both, in the article AND at the AfD, having to underscore times that the article has been improved since nomination. And why must rescuers be forced to do such double-duty because a nom fails to practice even the most rudimentary of proper WP:BEFORE?? I do it, yes. I strive to improve wherever I go... but ARS would not even be neccessary if nominators were actually required to follow diligent WP:ATD or [WP:BEFORE]] prior to a nomiation.. We have all seen to many "No sources, non-notable" deletion arguments... arguments that have been then been refuted. Why not set some penalty for repeated bad nominations? Why not make the nominator have a responsibility for his acttions? Sure might end a lot of wikidrama if a nom knew his 4th or 5th bad nomination... one that was met by a resounding keep... might act to limit his future actions. As pointed out, it is far too easy to nominate and far more difficult to save such articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 5[edit]

A question to pose: What is the benefit of having a membership of ARS, presuming that the functionality of ARS was part of WP's process?

That is, assume that ((rescue)) dropped articles on a page WP:Articles for Rescue, and was a respected part of AFD. Maybe even a mechanism of transclusion so that there would be small discussions about the rescue effect (though this really could be done on the talk page of the affected article). Effectively, the functionality of the ARS is present. What need, then, would be served for an ARS membership page and discussion !forum for rescuing?

To reply about the obvious counterpoint, for most other WProjects, the WProject pages serve as a common point to centralize discussion of style and content guidelines for articles that fall under that project's header, something that would nearly impossible to follow across individual article sections. (eta) Discussions relating to the process of rescuing could of course continue on whatever process page that happens to be (WP:Rescuing articles?)

So a question to ask: is the benefits of having a ARS membership outweigh the problems with the ARS membership to keep it? Again, I don't see any intrinsic value to the ARS page - the processes, absolutely, but not the membership aspects. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems quite off topic. We are discussing the ARS page here and the membership concept seems quite peripheral to this. As I understand it, many WikiProjects assume that any editor with an interest in that topic is thereby a member. Membership lists are just a convenience and do not imply any formal franchise or exclusivity. The list seems an unimportant aspect of this and could be amended or removed without deleting the entire page. If you want to discuss that, please do so elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it a tangent as the initial concerns that opened this MFD are about behavior of the group, even if just select members of the group. If you remove the membership that leads to that behavior, leaving behind the process, there seems to be lots of benefits across the board. There has not been any indication of what good the ARS as a group serves outside of the process itself. If there is no benefit to having an ARS group that outweighs the given behavioral problems, then that's why I suggest that an official "rescue" process be put into place and ARS dismantled and marked historical. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership is a red herring. Someone can say they are a member and never visit AfD, and someone can use the ARS list of articles and not be a "member". Membership of ARS carries no obligations, and excludes nobody from acting as they wish.

But... the proposal by Masem to have Rescue as an integral part of AfD is intriguing. Articles that look worth rescuing could be shifted into a parallel process, in which debate is frozen, and editors have say a week or two to source and improve articles, then return them to AfD. This could be an option for closing admins. There could also be a listed of articles that were reprieved from deletion but still need improvement at the close of the AfD discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag historical and reform per Masem. لenna vecia 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as historical, very quickly, for the most part per Carnildo, Sceptre and Cameron Scott. Could have been a good, workable idea, used in the spirit of community collaboration. Isn't. Get rid of it. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed, at one point I had an ARS userbox. That said, although I am not a "rabid inclusionist", I have many times set myself to working hard to fix an article that obviously deserved to be kept. At the same time, I've done NPP and am happy to see some articles deleted. I remain picky about what I will and will not fight for. When used properly, ARS has the opportunity to do good for the encyclopedia - this "us vs them crap has to stop, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote, Delete and Salt. Improvement of articles does not need a group like this to function, and Wikipedia certainly doesn't need a group to point people towards AfD pages to vote "keep", as is evident of many of the keep votes here. I know that it won't be any result other than Keep, but that won't be because that is the best option.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most rational comments admit that the idea behind the Squadron is good. Indeed its principles ought to be upheld by anyone who volunteers to work at Wikipedia-- namely, improve content if possible. The complaints against the way project has turned recently are only against individual editors and their actions. It needs to be remembered that both the the disruption and the provoking of the other side to mis-behave comes from both pro- and anti-Squadron sides. Anyway, there are many ways to deal with misbehaving editors. Deleting perfectly valid projects which they have disrupted is not one of them. Dekkappai (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wry smile It's interesting that we are now, at last, effectively having something akin to the RfC that apparently there was no interest in when it was mooted on WT:ARS pablo_hablo. 20:19, 22 May 2009
- And guess what? There is still no credible RfC issue to be sorted out that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. Indeed that discussion didn't go nom's way so they threatened to open a MfD and here we are. Well done. Not only did no concensus to sort out a particular aspect of an RfC occur many editors have been pulled into the drama of only a few. ARS welcomes all regardless of their beliefs but uncivil behavious are against policies for this very reason. It disrupts community-building and consensus process. I extend to you, and anyone else, to post on my talkpage and see if we can suss out what if any RfC would be constructive. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it was discussed ad nauseam by (largely) the same editors; what I meant was there have been other eyes and some more opinions here. pablo_hablo. 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having more eyes is usually better. My point is that instead of actually improving anything or discussing a way forward this has been the same generalized and polarized discussion part umpteeth. If we had an RfC that actually addressed something relevant to the project as a whole and didn't mainly concern just some poor behaviour issues I would have welcomed it. Instead this bolsters that indeed there still exists deletionists vs inclusionists and I doubt anyone really thought that had changed. -- Banjeboi 22:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way I see it, this is like a gang of mean kids trying to scare another group of kids out of the community sandbox. When that fails, they resort to kicking over their sandcastles which makes a few cry, pick up their toys and go home. Most however don't leave the sandbox and some of those who went home earlier later return with their older brothers and sisters in tow. The gang of mean kids isn't happy that they've not been able to get the other kids to leave the sandbox so they come back with bags of cement and attempt to mix it into the sand to prevent anyone from building a sandcastle.
The only thing I see coming out of this sort of MfD is further division and resentment between various fractions of editors.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things were clearly not working well in the community sandbox, which is why we are here. Some of the kids in the sandbox didn't want to play well with other children. Some decided that it was "their" sandbox. Some decided to gang up on — sorry, I can't be bothered extending this metaphor of yours. You could just comment on the issue without it. pablo_hablo. 21:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Things" weren't working well for some and they have turned the metaphorical sandbox into a battleground. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer. First off my apprecation to you, whoever you are, for having to sift through all of this. The lenthy and tone of many of these comments going in all directions was part of the reason I personally saw little point in forcing an RfC as those who simply like or don't like the ARS in prinicple or practice would vociferously make that known. FWIW, this seems to be an extension of two users' ongoing engagement. The nom has had issues disengaging while Ikip arguably has also not helped by countering them back. In fairness Ikip has been willing to modify and the stated concerns have stopped as far as I'm aware. That said some of ARS' critics won't be satidified until ARS is shut down. Luckily we don't conform Wikiprojects to suit the concerns of their critics. Instead constructive criticism should be taken on board and reasonable adjustments made. ARS has continually done this. Zero actual harm or evidence of harm has been shown that ARS as a project has canvassed, vote-stacks, or any of the other scandalous hot-buttom issues associated with XfD. Indeed ARS seems to take steps, and is willing to do more, to help prevent such activities. It is rather unreasonable to suggest that one Wikiproject not be notified of policies that impact their work, the only issue there is that notices be kept neutral. Nor is it reasonable that ARS members be restricted to only improving content and not !voting at XfD, this would rather defy logic, be largely unenforcible and degrade the process by eliminating those most likely to be looking dispassionately at the subject's notabilty and usefullness. There is also no foreseeable benefit to punishing the entire Wikiproject for the actions of a very few, all of whom, except the nom have modified their behaviours. Likewise it's rather funny to assert any form of eliminating the projects member list when no harm is coming from the list itself, it's there to aid the project and people may or may not sign up in the first place. The issue boils down to ARS critics, who arguably lean more on the deletion ideology would like to see this project done away with because the mistaken belief that some reformed version of the same won't quickly be enacted. The community has affirmed the usefulness of this project repeatedly and all who want to contribute constructively are welcome to take part. Membership gets you nothing but a list of articles that may be rescuable and a posse of like-minded editors who enjoy the challenge of determining if content is sourceble and notable. In essence this Wikiproject facilitates improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Other attempts to mitigate it and target its participants are also counterproductive. I would also appreciate some extra admins helping watch over the project talkpage as observers if nothing else as I counseled against taking the nom to admin board for topic-ban and that likely was a mistake. A neutral observer may have caught that sooner. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses...

[*]Sifting through this does merit some kind of award. I want cookies.

[*]While the nomination itself does seem to be spurred by disagreements (I have no precise knowledge on this topic, nor do I really wish to), most of the concerns are 100% valid when presented with a sane and sober tone and deserve to be responded to in a similar manner. To be frank, not a lot of that has been shown here, and comments like "Luckily we don't conform Wikiprojects to suit the concerns of their critics" don't much help with that.

[*]While members should be free to vote, the primary function should be to improve, not just to sway votes. From what I've seen, a lot of the more polar individuals have been doing just that.

[*]There is no real "punishment" going on, except perhaps to ego. Nothing currently available for options would go away with a Delete decision. You can still improve, and still vote.

This is largely a case of "what you're supposed to be doing is good, but you're not showing that you're actually doing what you are supposed to be." For starters, ARS should not be used to rally people for votes in AfD votes. Period. If the stated goal is to improve articles that can be rather than deleted, then the focus should be on improvement and not voting. A policy stating such would be silly in many regards, but that is still how things should be looked at.

And on a final response note, lumping all critics into "deletionists" is just plain unfair. Speaking personally, some things just need to be deleated, but the obviously preferable choice is improvement is possible within the scope of Wikipedia. That just isn't always possible, and both the tactics to try and sway that situation and the partisan feelings on both sides are terribly unhelpful.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should all have been much more civil. Had nom been the only uncivil player their actions and behaviours would have been more quicky isolated and even dealt with. That two of the combatants are admins didn't help with the tenor of things. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I disagree with any assessment that deleting this project wouldn't "go away", this Wikiproject tries to collaborate in identifying and rescuing encyclopedic content. Some very healthy and productive discussions have taken place and many good ideas have come out of here benefitting the encyclopedia. Nom, and a few critics have continually accused ARS of vote-stacking but these claims fall rather flat when asked to provide actual evidence of this. Has it occured in practice, possibly but baseless votes have always happenned at XfD and closers aren't vote-counters. Before this pointy MfD we were in process of a neutral effort to identify and reach out to empty !voters to help coach them towards better practices. Nom's own actions have stalled that effort. We've also started a "How to" rescue guide but alas we're spending time doing this instead. After three months of this you can imagine I only have so much energy for such discussions answering the very same allegations based on a very small number of incidents restricted to even fewer editors, all of who but nom have stopped as far as I'm aware. Agree that characterizing all ARS memebers as inclusionists and all critics as deletionists is simply false and unhelpful. Personally I don't see myself as an inclusionist but I rarely vote to delete something unless I really think it's beyond hope. I've seen too many rescues of "hopeless" articles to know that it often is a matter of the right editor(s) being matched up asap to the XfD. In part that's what ARS tries to do. I appreciate you taking the time to comment! -- Banjeboi 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the project does good work. Any WP:civility problems with specific users using uncivil language. Objectionable language in the project page itself should be brought up on the project talk page or WP:RfC, if needed. Civility issues are not a valid reason to delete a very active project. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improving articles at AfD should be encouraged. I get the distinct feeling that the problem here is just the attitude of a select few users on both sides, not the project itself. As far as votestacking accusations go, I've gone through this entire debate and came away asking Where's the beef? Besides which, nothing is gained by deletion here - if you think (supposed) inclusionist votestacking or whatever will go away by deleting ARS, then I've got some lovely coastal Florida property to sell you at very reasonable prices. There have been some decent ideas tossed around here, and members of the project should probably at least consider making changes to alleviate concerns further, but frankly I see no point to mandating an RfC that's almost certain to devolve into the same inclusionist-deletionist squabbling. BryanG (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone asked if there were any stats on how many items ARS has worked on. Mostly we never kept any records and just focused on the work. However based on records from the last ten months I extrapolated some loose estimates. Based on these numbers I loosely project ARS has worked on;

2007 (project started in mid-2007)= 750 "rescuing" 300-400
2008 (averaged for twelve months) = 1434 "rescuing" 478
2009 (for the first five months) = 823 "rescuing" 250-300
Total = 3007 "rescuing" 1028-1178

These are very generalized and we may never know the actual figures as the current processes to use the rescue tag to flag items triggers a bot which creates a listing. Articles never tagged but still rescued are therefore generally not counted anywhere. -- Banjeboi 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good numbers, for several reasons. If only a few were rescued, the project wouldn't be worth doing: wether not improving articles well enough, or spending its efforts on hopeless articles, or running against impossible opposition. If everything were rescued, that would show it to be a lobby. Since only 1/3 succeed, there is clearly no substance at all to the charges that it mobilizes support for bad articles sufficient to keep them. There are about 35,000 AfD nominations a year. The project is helping 500 of them. That's 1.5 % . Surely anyone would admit that that 1 or 2 percent of the articles at AfD are worth saving ?!

So why the opposition? AGF, they have not actually analyzed the overall effect of the project and are focusing on scattered individual articles they didn't think should have been rescued. From that, they extrapolate to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Humans tend to make that error, to argue by isolated examples and exaggerate rare dangers. DGG (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the trend: in 2007 taking the middle of the range, ARS had just under a 50% success rate. It's now under 30%. --Carnildo (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might then be seen as indicative of some editors actually doing proper WP:BEFORE and making less frivilous nominations. ARS has had a positive affect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it: random date:

February 6, 2007: 151 AfD's, 39 Keeps, 15 merges, 3 Speedy Keeps, and 8 no consensus: 5 Redirects; and 68 deletes and 13 Speedy deletes.
February 6, 2009: 86 AfD's: 16 Keeps, 2 merges, 2 Speedy keeps 4 no consensus, and 1 nom withdrawn; 7 redirects; and 48 deletes and 6 speedy deletes.

Otherwise put, in 2007, 81 out of 151 AfD's ended in outright delete (slightly over 50%), and 42 in outright keep (almost 30 %). By 2007, with a large and active rescue project, 52 of 86 AfD's ended in delete (some 60%), and 18 ended in outright keep (some 20%). If (big if) this single day may be extrapolated to all dates, this means that without a rescue squadron, we had considerable more articles kept at AfD than with the rescue squadron. So why the opposition to this MfD and any changes? They have not actually analyzed the overall effect of the project. Evidence that articles are being kept with the rescue squadron does not equal the opposite, that article are deleted when we don't have a rescue squadron. Fram (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the change in numbers might then be seen as indicative of some editors actually now doing proper WP:BEFORE and making fewer frivilous nominations, and some worrisome articles thus being improved. Whether its 10% or 30%, ARS has had a positive affect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Continue discussion on Talk page Something like this should be discussed about on the Talk page instead of escalating to MfD too soon, the only time a WikiProject should be nominated for deletion is if a discussion on the Talk page has escalated to an Edit war or conflict, that is why I have created a custom comment option. Veraladeramanera (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute on the talk page, a RFC was suggested but rejected by (generalizing) the most active members of the ARS, so your custom comment is not really on the mark here. 20:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Break 6[edit]

Comment I am myself quite proud of rescuing some 100 articles with the support and encouragement of the ARS. But with all due respects, lack of guideline instructed Before is what sent these articles to AfD in the first place. That lack of due diligence is a major problem. That these articles could and were fixed means that the AfD process is broken and is itself in desperate need of a serious overhaul. That flaw is why ARS was brought into existance and that flaw has sparked the resulting dissentions that brought us to this page today.
With respects, if nominators properly followed editing policy (and many do, so this is not meant to be a too-broad brush) and dedicated the time required to fix a problem article instead of the mere seconds required to nominate (thus foisting that task onto other editors), they would not have to then spend hours arguing in defense of their nomination... time that might have been better spent improving the article. THAT would serve to improve the project. This lack of due diligence is representative of one of the several flaws inherent in the AfD process that continually causes problems and disentions. Sadly, this makes AfD the continued spawning ground of project-wide disruption.
It is urgent that editors who are so quick to nominate at Afd be encouraged with haste to recognize that Wkipedia itself knows that it is not perfect, and that it does not expect nor demand itself to be.
Further, and so often disparagingly snubbed as inclusionist, the policy WP:PRESERVE specifically instructs that editors fix problems if they can, and flag them only if they can't. AfD is a last resort.
Further, assertions that "editors can always request a userfication" is a lazy response that does not improve the project, and makes more work for others that need not be required.
Editing Policy was written to encourage the continued growth of Wikipedia... not its diminishment. It has instructions on how to handle problematic articles, without making them problematic in the process. My two cents. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Michael Q Schmidt's many and frequent mentions of WP:BEFORE, perhaps ARS members could also take it upon themselves to follow-up nominations that result in articles being kept (such nominatons are often referred to as "bad noms" which does not itself exactly assume good faith) by actually talking—non-adversarialy—to the editors and suggesting they do some research? There are many possible outcomes of an AfD, one of the good things about the process is that it puts articles which may have only been edited by a couple of editors into a crucible where they are critically examined by a wider audience. Ideally anyone who comments in an AfD should inspect the article and its sources for themself. pablo_hablo. 22:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement. Follow-through is an excellent suggestion. If the nomination is by a new and inexperienced editor, that indicates that instruction in proper procedures is needed... schooling... mentorship... help. But when there are repeated nominations from experienced editors who "should" know better, that becomes indicative of a far greater problem. As I showed above, offering some 100 articles that I myself saved, somebody is shirking the responsibilities we take on when becoming Wikipedians. Does that mean I am makeing a presumption of bad faith? Or simply called a spade a spade. I do not mean to offend, but we're (supposedly) all here with the same goal of improving the project. Not trying to actually see if something is salvagable before flatly stating its is not and then nominating it is indicative of a deepr problem that should be addressed. My opinion, perhaps.... but one based on experience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not something can or should be salvaged is itself a judgement call. AfD closures sometimes surprise me, particularly if there are only a few participants. I recently nominated Vince Orlando for deletion. I only came across it because Gwallijr (talk · contribs) started editing articles related to Gary W Allison Jr. Vince Orlando has no references at all. He has a grand total of 4 acting credits, 3 production credits, and 2 writing credits listed at IMDB. None of them in notable movies. (Oh, there's an article for one, but it ain't notable.) Yet, this survived AfD, with no one, including yourself, offering any guideline or policy based reason for keeping. (You suggested that you believed you could add sources which would make it notable.) I don't think Vince Orlando meets the standard of notability for Wikipedia, so how much effort do you think I will expend to try and find sources once I have determined that? At this point AfD is so uncertain that I'm staying away from it until it's fixed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't spank me. :) I have been involved in many real-world activities, and am unable to volunteer as much time as others. Many things on Wikipedia are "judgement calls"... however, the Orlando article is on my list of things to follow up. I made my own "opinion" based upon some minor WP:CLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, WP:POTENTIAL, and a guideline-encouraged presumption of notability based upon the article and its asertions. Per WP:Editing policy, I might myself have simply tagged it for concerns of style and sourcing and moved on... hoping to come back later and help improve it. Guideline discourages moving something to the fires simply because it "looks" poorly or "lacks" present sourcing. I find WP:IMPERFECT to be an enlightening piece of policy. If it were heeded more often, we might all have less angst. In good faith, I accept that you do not believe that the Orlando article properly shows notability. But there is no hurry to make it do so... just a policy-wide encouragement to help it do so. Tossing such is (in my opinion) counter-productive to the ultimate goals of the project. And I understand how once you make a judegement call that something is (currently) non-notable that you will likley not spend much time trying to find sources once you made that initial determination. Your own efforts are being made in truest and most heartfelt of honest good faith... but so (hopefully) were all of these... improvable yet still tossed to the fires. If a rescue is possible, should not one be attemperd? I believe above there was some mention of an AfD review of artcles that might benefit from rescue. THAT is something I would support 100%. Too many articles, so little time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After Googling Mr Orlando and deciding that there's no reason for him to be in Wikipedia, I nominated him for AfD. (And frankly, if his article hadn't been used as part of a promotional effort of Gary W. Allison Jr, I might have left it alone.) WP:PRESERVE talks about keeping existing "information" that may be useful. To me that means "don't delete facts about Vince Garaldi" not "don't delete articles about Vince Orlando" because, until Vince Orlando does something that is worth keeping in Wikipedia, there is no reason to have an article about him at all (even if WP is not paper, and there is no deadline, and many other slogans). Otherwise, why bother with all those annoying guidelines that just get in everyone's way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... just took a look and one of the editors who had ivoted "redirect" decided he did not like the non-admin closure. And though it seems a bit of COI (based upon his having offered an opinion that would eliminate the article), he reverted the closure anyway. Wow. Not quite a move per consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dc, AfD is erratic, but it's in both directions --I think the error rate is at least 10% deletion of articles that could be saved and 5% keeping articles that should be deleted. What it needs is more participation. And of course ARS doesn't always do the job, and people don't fulfill all they think they ought to do. This problem also can be solved by increasing participation in it so that more people engage in the work. I do not like blaming one person who has rescued properly many dozens of articles for having not yet managed to get to one of them. "You say you can rescue these, but one of the 100 died anyway" That's a complaint? That he does so many is a tribute. And the more people are distracted here, the less they can actually work at saving articles. DGG (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't blaming MQS, even if it reads that way. He knows that I respect the work that he does to improve movie-related articles. I was simply using a recent AfD nomination that I made as an example. It seems less messy than most because of the small number of participants and the (I think) clear lack of notability of the subject. I'm equally surprised when AfDs that I think will be closed as keep are closed as delete, I just don't have a good example at hand. My point was simply that no one made a keep vote that was based on guidelines or policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does an editor have to quote WP:Editing policy verbatim? In any case, the closure has been reverted by one of the editors who wishes the article removed. Thank goodness we editors do not always agree, else I know 100 articles that would not be here. I sweated over those and made them worthy. Again, I have full acceptance of your good faith. But those 100 examples show that a deletion nomination made in good faith is not always the correct or only option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A keep !vote on the basis that an article can be improved is based upon our most fundamental policy, of building an encyclopedia. Articles that fail to be improved can be easily renominated after a few months, and generally are. Articles improperly deleted are much harder to restore, for only admin can find them. Nobody actually says they do not think that people should improve articles. Some people however seem to want to make it as difficult as possible. ( I do have some individuals in mind, but D.c., you are not one of them.) DGG (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since, as predicted in the nomination, all Keeps are being misrepresented as attacks against the nominator, here's a question that might as well have been asked earlier: Is it really proper to spend months ceaselessly creating arguments at a project, and then MfDing it in large part for its "battleground" mentality? The question is rhetorical of course... the answer is obvious. Dekkappai (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Your premisse is flawed, and so is (obviously then) your conclusion. People were giving constructive criticism at the project, pointing out the flaws and misuses, and trying to keep it focused on its core business. But instead of actually looking at the merits of these remarks, a very defensive WP:OWN mentality started attacking the critics, asking for topic bans, sending them to other projects, attacking their objectives and what they had done for Wikipedia. If a project is no longer open to everyone, and rejects an RFC, then there are not many paths left open... Fram (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this project has consistently functioned, in practice, as a canvassing operation. While more participants at AfD can be a good thing, mobs of uninformed but opinionated participants tend to lower the level of discourse. Anyone, no matter his philosophy on deletion, is free to look through the daily logs; there's no need for a special project encouraging "rescue" of material that, quite often, simply isn't deserving of "rescue", but when "rescued", has the effect of debasing the encyclopedia as a whole. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the ARS doesn't stop the mobs of uninformed but opinionated "delete per noms" and "delete as crufts" from accounts that just hover over AfD rather than improving articles. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Straw man argument - there is no project sending such editors to vote "delete"; this one essentially does so for "keep" voters. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - People don't need a project to just hover over AfD saying to delete everything that on a glance they don't like without doing actual research on the topic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to speedy close per WP:SNOW, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:POINT[edit]

This discussion is to determine whether or not the project should be deleted, i.e. redlinked. There is absolutely no consensus for redlinking this article and it is apparent that such a consensus is not going to emerge. The majority of the handful of actual "deletes" are in clear bias or inaccuracy. We don't use XfDs to discuss whether to mark something as historical, and we cannot expect a closing admin of an XfD to have to initiate an RfC. It is clear that whatever should be the future of the ARS, redlinking lacks community support and as such any further discussion should take place in appropriate talk page venue. Moreover, the main opponents on the talk page previously (A Man In Black and Ikip) are both now blocked, so such discussion could potentially be less antagonistic. Thus, we have a clearly pointed nomination that seems to be a means of venue shopping, not so much for deletion, but to misuse an MfD as some kind of replacement RfC and as such what we have is not a real discussion over deletion, but rather a "battleground" of allegations against all "sides" more so than proactive discussion over how to move the project forward. How many of the participants here have improved articles by adding sources while this discussion has distracted us? How many accounts would defend something totally nonsensical in an MfD like WP:CRUFT, but say to redlink a project that actually intends to improve articles? This discussion is becoming increasingly absurd, increasingly adding to tensions, and serves no real purpose, because it is decisively clear that the pages will not be redlinked (we'd be in Deletion review immediately) and nor could we expect any closing admin to take on the burden of starting new discussions or reforms. Now instead of venue shopping and using extreme measures like here, we should have proactive and civil proposals for means forward as I suggest at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Some_proposals. I expect anyone who is actually here to improve Wikipedia will join me in taking that route of discussing realistic and reasonable ways of improving the project rather than continuing this unproducive and advarsarial MfD and moreover to focus are time and energy not filling up the pages of an MfD that means nothing to the general public, but rather on improving are actual content. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that this will close as either no consensus or keep (unless something really unusual happens). However, i see no reason not to allow this to run its course (it must be very close now). This is useful feedback for yall, and it will be instructive if this ever comes up again (i think the last MfD on this had maybe one delete/historify argument plus the nom -- opinions have shifted since). Consensus may continue to shift in that direction, particularly if members don't take any of what's been written here to heart (or maybe not. Who know? That's the beauty/flaw of the system here). Bali ultimate (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it will close as no consensus or keep, then it serves no person to continue it. We are getting a lot of hypocritical "feedback" that is hard to take seriously. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - let's have this debate. Let's shine the spotlight over this project and cleanse the rot with the disinfectant of publicity, rather than letting the matter continue to fester within the woodwork indefinitely. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were getting honest and legitimate criticisms okay, but we're a getting a lot of sour grapes over the project having rescued articles a handful of accounts just didn't like. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I plan on closing this tonight. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I'm afraid I don't have the time to read through the discussion, so I'll leave it to another admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 24 May 2009 (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.