Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Why?

Back to the original question. In the above 50 pages, I count only three reasons editors gave that ARS should not appreciate all of the benefits and priveleges of a wikiproject.

1. Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it...This is manifestly untrue of this page.
2. I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't...I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here.
3. We are not a wikiproject

1. Response one: #South Park experts
2. Response two: Has anyone here ever done the same thing as answer #2 has said? The editor says he would do this, but has anyone? I see "come and keep x" a lot in other wikiprojects, without a signal word of criticism. I am sure there is some criticism somewhere, for example if a inclusionist editor posts on a deletionist leaning wikiproject. But it isn't widespread. Would editors be happy if we refactored request to help to be more neutral?
3. Response three: the only difference is we are not a wikiproject in name.

Ikip (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re 2: You might want to have a look at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. It has many AfD notifications, which typically lead to project members outnumbering the other AfD participants. The difference is that for WP:MATH members the questions are normally: "What is it? Where can we find out more? Is it notable?" As a result, the project members are often divided, but often seem to block vote one way or the other. Sometimes this does lead to suspicion and accusations similar to those which this project faces. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikiprojects can be created or destroyed rather easily. The ARS should not be a Wikiproject, and to the extent that it "behaves" like a Wikiproject, those behaviours should be ended. The cameraderie (which is pretty minimal, anyways) or shared sense of identity makes ARS a target of people who want to say "See? Look, rabid inclusionists!"--becoming a clique of that sort only damages ARS. ARS should be viewed as an institution like MedCab or 3O, where everyone comes to find the AfD's that could use specific improvements, generally sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Randomran: I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists. But the difference between ARS and other WikiProjects is that ARS has always had a special status. When it was created, there were worries that it would become nothing more than an inclusionist lobby group. But that was repeatedly refuted by editors -- across the inclusion spectrum by the way -- who pointed out two reasons why ARS was not an inclusionist lobby group:
  1. The project was confined in scope to improving articles tagged for deletion. (Which everyone agreed with.)
  2. The memberlist is not dominantly inclusionist. (Which a majority of people agreed with.)

On occasion the group spent more time talking at AFD than improving articles. But this was rare enough to be tolerable, and the closing admin could usually ignore the "well-researched, well-verified" !votes when they saw an article with nothing more than primary and self-published sources. This was a small inconvenience considering that ARS was able to save dozens of articles on their merits. Most people across the inclusion spectrum celebrated ARS, and even deletionists had to accept that when an article improved.

ARS has fundamentally changed in two ways. The first is that you contacted around three hundred editors who had inclusionist templates and asked them to join ARS. The second is that the group has been linking to other discussions that don't involve specific articles up for deletion, at a rate that is impossible to ignore. Now, it's impossible to undo the inclusionist recruitment drive, which itself is problematic. But even then, the drama would probably go away if ARS volunterily kept its original scope of tagging articles up for AFD, and improving them, and even participating in AFDs to the extent that they understand that it's not a vote. But when it starts to trickle into policy discussions, joining in discussions at other WikiProjects, or other centralized discussions that aren't about an article up for deletion, you can understand how this undermines the good will that ARS previously enjoyed. If you can't, then I think the only answer is to construct an RFC where we limit input to people who aren't tight with ARS, ikip, or AMiB for that matter. (Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too.) Randomran (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First, as you wrote on my talk page:

"I just want to chime in here and say we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith." [1] (although I never used the term "bad faith")

I would appreciate if you strike:

"I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists."

One, this is not the case (see next point for example), and two, we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith. I think we can agree that such comments are not helpful.

Second, I removed any mention of another editor's behavior,[2] even going so far as refactoring out the comments, because of a suggestion of other editors. I would appreciate the same courtesy [More].

Third, RE: "Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too"

I don't blame you for saying you are neutral, it makes your credibilty stronger to truly uninvoled editors.

WP:FICT was a project which Radorman was heavily involved with and supported. During the WP:FICT WP:RFC I notified several article talk pages that their was a RFC, with a neutral message. I took the unprecendented step of getting pre-approval from two admins before posting the message. WP:FICT had a direct effect on 25% of wikipedia, it would have deleted or merged thousands of articles. Ultimately WP:FICT failed for the third time.

Randorman, your comments here and on my talk page remind me of this very igenous RFC posting all over again. Ikip (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious - Ikip, what does "lessen the scope of Nobility" mean?

laterOh, you've deleted it already. It's here: Pixelface is an editor who has attempted to lessen the scope of Nobility as Randomran attempts to increase it.

Just wondering what exactly you're implying re Randomran and, more importantly, why it would have any bearing on this discussion. pablo_hablo. 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, a little disengous Pablomismo, I decided this was not relevant, and removed it on 18:52, 10 May 2009.

You post 22 minutes later at 19:14, 10 May 2009, when the sentence was long gone. At 19:41, 10 May 2009 you post the "later" comment.[3] Ikip (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ikip, you need to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. This is about the function of ARS. For the record, you misstate my view on notability, because I've tried to reduce it, expand it, and keep it the same at different times on different issues. You also misstate my role at WP:FICT, where I spent most of my time mediatinng between inclusionists and deletionists because I support reducing the scope of notability in specific cases, such as fiction. But most of all, bringing it up is completely irrelevant. I'd feel the exact same way if AMiB contacted 200 deletionists to join some Wikipedia space, and then other people started linking to various policy discussions. Not that it's an act in bad faith, but it's an act that at best will accidentally disrupt Wikipedia and turn it into a battleground. I don't want to see either side "arming up", and the truth is that if ARS is allowed to do this, it won't be long before the other side arms up too. Then we'll never get anywhere.

The same is true if you try to make this about peoples' views of inclusion or deletion. We'll never get anywhere. You have other inclusionists who are telling you that it would be better if ARS focused on just articles, and you have deletionists who say to let this go. This is a legitimate area of disagreement. An indepenent RFC will allow us to settle the issue, without getting into the heated and accusatory stuff that other editors were throwing at you. This isn't about your viewpoint, my viewpoint, or even whether anyone broke any rules. It's about the appropriate role of ARS, knowing that the recruitment is what it is. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are absolutely right; by the time I had read the lengthy Rfc that you linked you had already deleted that comment, and I didn't notice it was gone. I don't think that you could call that disengous, however (well you could, but I wouldn't). pablo_hablo. 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, if you keep saying something long enough will people start believing it? I never accused you of bad faith. You stated that you wanted to explore the history of this page, well, our history and how you came here is part of how others can understand the full situation. Explain this is not bad faith. Bad faith is accusing an editor of this. It troubles me when this is a case of hyprocricy and attempts at censorship. Ikip (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you used words like "hypocrisy" and "conflict of interest". You examined my claim that I'm neither an inclusionist (like you) or deletionist (like AMiB), and offered false statements that I supported a proposal to delete more fiction articles than are currently deleted under the WP:GNG. I keep trying to talk about the appropriateness of certain recruiting-and-discussion tactics -- regardless of whether these tactics are employed by deletionists or inclusionists -- and you keep suggesting that this is secretly an effort to target your content viewpoint. To me, that seems like you're accusing a lot of people of bad faith. But maybe we're just on the wrong foot, and need to get back on the right one.

1. Is the pending RFC totally hypocritical, or do some people believe in good faith that the scope of ARS is unique and fundamentally different from a WikiProject?
2. Is the pending RFC about whether selective-recruitment followed by discussion-linking should be stopped, or is it secretly an effort to hamstring people based on their views of article content?

There are answers to both questions that assume good faith, and there are answers that don't. If you want to, you can clear that up right now. Randomran (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate this thrown-to-the-wolves nonsense. There is not a spectrum of "inclusionism" and "deletionism" on which I am one end. About the only bold position I've struck is on campaigning in contentious discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No wolves. I'm just pointing out you and I have clashed based on content viewpoint too, and your content standards are stricter than mine. That is, I'm not aligned with either you or ikip. This is a situation where I share some of your criticisms about behavior, though, and think we can address it without being accusatory or harsh. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably am not the most welcome person to sound off on this, but I'm going to anyway. The main problem in perception that the ARS has is not that it doesn't enjoy the benefits and privileges of other Wikiprojects, but that in fact it has one that others do not. As far as I'm aware, ARS is the only Wikiproject whose tag goes on the article page rather than the talk page. While it may not functionally make much difference, as it is likely to get categorized anyway, more than anything else this is your big problem with the perception that you're simply "rabid inclusionists". --BlueSquadronRaven 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• It also has an unlimited scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Counterexample: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. All of the various cleanup-XYZ templates go on articles. But where the template goes is not the issue at hand, nor even one that has been brought up as a factor. (The template isn't even central to rescuing articles. I have two articles currently in mind for rescue that weren't, with one still not being, tagged with the template at all.) The issue at hand is that because of some editors who want a battleground, ARS is being turned into one, and being an ARS "member" is diverging from being someone who actually rescues articles, to the extent that the battlegrounders are now actively attempting to drive away from the ARS people whose focus is working on articles. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise, I recently helped rescue one article as a merge, another as a cleanup and not commenting at the AfD, and an image (let's not go there yet!), none of which were tagged for Rescue. Tagging articles helps "rally the troops", but isn't one hundred per cent necessary, nor is a lot of the back and forth we've been experiencing lately. We're most effective when we're lurking at AfD'd articles. Radiopathy •talk• 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Another counter-example is the Orphan project. There's no case to answer here. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from an editor

Resolved

I just recieved this question on my talk page:

Hello Ikip, thanks for the welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron. Could you tell me how to resue a page? Baileyf07 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please direct any answers to this editor's talk page. Ikip (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have answered on his page, any additional help will be appreciated. Ikip (talk)

This seems resolved for now, can we archive it? -- Banjeboi 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New article and book mentioning ARS

Resolved

 – New listing added, thanks everyone! -- Banjeboi 07:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See tag at the top.

http://www.pc-actual.com/actualidad/noticia/2008/09/17/Adversus-Wikipedia (In Spanish):

""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)."

Ikip (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's essentially a review/rehash of the Nicholson Baker piece in the New York Review of books.

La poda puede ser necesaria, pero el exceso de celo es nocivo para el proyecto. Afortunadamente, también hay partidarios del inclusionismo, y en muestra del espíritu de Wikipedia, se han unido en un grupo llamado ARS (Article Rescue Squadron o Escuadrón de Rescate de Artículos). Entre unos y otros, Wikipedia se mantiene relevante, pero no a costa de ser menos enciclopédica.

"Celo" is better translated as "zeal" here; "estar en celo" does mean "to be in heat", but only if you are a bitch. pablo_hablo. 09:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not versed in Spanish, is it the same article reprinted or a reworked version or an actual review of Baker's article? -- Banjeboi 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

edited - should have read more carefully before commenting.It has a similar slant, but it's not the same article. It quotes it, particularly Baker's experiences as an editor (which are, after all, interesting), and contrasts his view with that of Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, who is not keen on a fan of Wikipedia (or, indeed the Web in general). pablo_hablo. 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Coolio, thank you for following up on it. -- Banjeboi 07:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to end edit-warring of including "objection statement" to ARS' FAQ

The following was removed from ARS' FAQ by an editor who has a history of objections to ARS:

1. What if I object to what Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is doing?

   ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve content as a maintenance project. Our scope is not subject focussed as much as policy-focussed to determine if content adheres to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and notability. Any editor committed to improving the encyclopedia is welcome to help here as well as at any of the other projects representing a variety of views and interests.

Any constructive suggestions to wording changes welcome otherwise I'd like to re-add as it has indeed been a source of disruption so spelling out clearly what our focus is and that other Wikiprojects exist which may be in line with someone's views seems appropriate. -- Banjeboi 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See the entire proto-RFC above for objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is a question that is in any sense "frequently asked", unless it is a question that editors are asking each other via e-mail. I've never seen it asked on this page. pablo_hablo. 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The spirit, obviously, is to address those who simply object to ARS which is sadly evident. Casting aspersions on all project members and non-objectively characterizing all members as part of some cabal. This is to help address that not everyone has to agree with what every Wikiproject does. In my experience if someone doesn't like LGBT issues they don't sit around the LGBT project talkpage harassing us. IMHO, that is what has been happenning here in many subtle forms. If any of these issues were dealt with civilly I doubt we would need such a statement but there you go. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not address. It dismisses. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What could we add that may help ease that then - constructive suggestions are always welcome - or what? -- Banjeboi 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you ease the problem? Dispose of this. "What if I object?" "Whatever your objection is, here's a statement about why this project is good and why you shouldn't have any objections." It doesn't specify any objection, it doesn't address any objection, it's a non-question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And on top of this, it says that this project does something it explicitly does not and should not do. It is not the place where people "determine if content adheres to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and notability." This is not an article deletion thinktank. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I think it was a really good idea that you brought these discussions here. I disagree with you on some things, but this was a really good call. thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, you have caused a huge amount of disruption to this project, repeatedly over at least the past few months. In short this statement is to address your behaviours and anyone else following in your footsteps. Although others have come, made their peace and moved on, or been resoundly rejected in various community forums, you have stuck in my mind and that's unfortunate because it's for the worst of reasons. I look forward to the day we interact and I have to be reminded that we clashed over several months; that seems like a ways off at this point. You can continue what feels like attrition warfare but the next step is more eyes on your actions rather than what seems like an effort to in some way mitigate ARS' work. Is this a rather pointy statement? Perhaps, I hope it will curb some rather pointy behaviours. Even if you think you're right doesn't give you license to turn this project into a battleground. And yes we very much look to policies to decide what sourcing is indeed reliable; we look to policy to guide us on what subjects are indeed notable, etc. etc. -- Banjeboi 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait. So you're saying that people have come here with problems, been rebuffed, and left with nothing happening, and that's good. But I stayed to see change effected, and that's bad. This is revealing, but not in the way you think. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from putting words in my mouth, that really seems like arguing semantics when the spirit expressed, both here and elsewhere, is that constructive criticism to any Wikiproject is fine and welcome. bullying and other incivil behaviours are not. -- Banjeboi 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AMiB, I don't think you're going to get anywhere here. When editors start saying things like "A FAQ section is to help curb alleged problems - unclear why you would be opposed to solving the very issues you seem to be contiually alleging exist", there is a reasonable chance that they actually believe what they are saying (i.e. that dismissing all forms of criticism is a good way to solve a problem). It's good to know the Richard Nixon school of crisis management is still going strong, but Wikipedia pages shouldn't try to advertise in favour of their existence. This just makes it even more of a "us vs. them" battleground. Ben,Trav,Michael, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. While you may, by acting as a group, be able to do pretty much what you like with the pages here, don't forget that when the day of judgement comes (and we all know it will), every over the top green-e-in-the-signatures-type-thing will become an argument for your opponents. yandman 09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yandman, this really seems like back-handed compliment loaded with bad faith. The posse mounted against this Wikiproject in short is alleging there is an inclusionist cabal run amok at ARS yet the proof of such remains woefully thin and mostly absent. The few reasonable concerns as pointed out by uninvolved parties is (i) watch for possible problems when ARS is involved in non-article XfDs; (ii) notification posts to ARS need to be neutral and (iii) empty !votes should be discouraged. Guess what? Those issues have been and are being addressed. Veiled threats notwithstanding, constructive critism has hardly been dismissed. I can't think of any instance where someone's valid concerns haven't been addressed. Whether they like they answer they get may certainly be another issue. -- Banjeboi 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you thought this would be productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the FAQ have its own talk page?

Resolved

 – FAQ moved, thank you! -- Banjeboi 07:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

When you see a page, and want to discuss it, you normally click on the "discussion" tab, and that takes you to its talk page. But for the FAQ, it gives you a redirect to the page itself. Why is that? Shouldn't we keep things in a nice orderly manner, it easier to find things that way? [4] Dream Focus 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, unfortunately the template used {{FAQ}} assumes the talk namespace, so this isn't going to work until something's sorted out WP-wide. That's why when you kept reverting edits to the FAQ page (now a redirect) the link to the FAQ just brought up your and Col. W's conversation. pablo_hablo. 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely you could just subst the template and point it to the preferred target location? Stifle (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kludged by yours truly. When the FAQ template says "This template employs intricate features of template syntax." It's not kidding, so I did a slap-dash job. I'll attempt to improve it asap. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not kidding! When I saw what you were doing I thought -"there goes a brave man". pablo_hablo. 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Templates should be used where they make things easier, not more difficult. Definitely, the FAQ should be in pure WP space, so that changes to it can be specifically discussed. This might have avoided a certain level of disruption, recently, or not, but, for sure, it wouldn't hurt. Consensus documents should really all have an associated Talk page, so that they can be efficiently maintained, and if those watching the document can't agree, then they can solicit comment from the main Talk page (or beyond, if necessary). --Abd (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It possibly would have save some grief to have a dedicated talk page, there has been disagreement about the contents of the FAQ recently. pablo_hablo. 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)