Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 24:

~~{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Discussion used|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-19/Discussion report|day=19|month=March|year=2012|writer=[[User talk:Whenaxis|Whenaxis]]|small=yes}}~~

{{tmbox

| image = [[File:WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg|40px]]

| small = yes

| text = This discussion was featured in [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-19/Discussion report|a Discussion Report]] in the ''[[Wikipedia:Signpost|Signpost]]'' on 19 March 2012. It was written by {{#if: | [[User talk:Whenaxis|Whenaxis]] and | [[User talk:Whenaxis|Whenaxis]] }}. If you wish to get involved with the ''Signpost'', please visit [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom|the Newsroom]].

}}

==Statement of the dispute==

Line 209 ⟶ 214:

#In full disclosure, this RfC is being initiated by me after [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Topic ban proposed|a decision at AN]] banned me from raising issues about the Article Rescue Squadron elsewhere. However, this RfC was allowed because a significant number of editors signaled their desire for such a discussion about the issues involved.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#::Given the size of involvement in previous discussions, such as the TfD, and the group's frequent involvement in AfD I have added this to centralized discussion.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#I am going to go ahead and co-certify this RfC. Prior to my closing the above mentioned ANI report, I hadn't had any material involvement with ARS for years and didn't know TDA. (I think my last encounter with ARS was 3-4 years ago.) The ANI discussion convinced me that there was enough interest in a community discussion on this subject to warrant an RfC, thus my co-certification. It should be noted to the closing admin of this RfC, that when closing the discussion that I asked that TDA's partial block from ARS subjects be reviewed to determine whether it should be increased to full block, remain at partial, or eliminated entirely. That being said, I do not think this RfC should be about TDA or specific users, but rather about appropriateness of behavior. Does ARS engage in the activities described by TDA? Are they acceptable? Should they be modified/curtailed/allowed? Note, as this discussion originate at WP:AN, I have posted a note there that the RfC has begun.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:purple;">Balloonman</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|Poppa Balloon]]'' 17:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

== Statements ==

Line 220 ⟶ 225:

# Agreed. Too frequently ARS is "rescuing" for rescue's sake alone, not for content improvement. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# Yes, though this is now less common [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# --[[User:Guerillero|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#0b0080;">Guerillero</~~font~~span>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">My Talk</~~font~~span>]] 17:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# It does happen. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]'' 00:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

# It's not as bad as it has been, but yes, it does happen. [[User:Reyk|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="~~Maroon~~color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</~~font~~span>]] ~~~~[[User talk:Reyk|'''<~~font~~sub ~~color~~style="~~Blue~~color:blue;">YO!</~~font~~sub>''']]~~~~ 01:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

# Less common than previously, but still more common than it should be. – [[User:NULL|NULL]] ‹[[User talk:NULL#top|talk]]› ‹[[Special:Contributions/NULL|edits]]› 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

# Article RESCUE Squad are only here to 'save' articles almost independently of how bad they are, and there's no Article Deletion Squad nor could there really be one. Therefore, raising it at ARS is an inherently unbalanced idea, it's automatically vote stacking.[[User:Teapeat|Teapeat]] ([[User talk:Teapeat|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 232 ⟶ 237:

# The ARS is clearly using AfD as an ideological battleground between the inclusionist and deletionist fronts. While community consensus is a neutral form of input ([[law of large numbers]] says that on average there will be an even number of inclusionists, deletionists, and neutral), the ARS is disrupting that by vote-canvassing similar to that of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|partisan politics]]. [[User:BlowingTopHat|Blowing]][[User talk:BlowingTopHat|Top]][[Special:Contributions/BlowingTopHat|Hat]] 17:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

#I feel much the same as headbomb; If ARS didn't exist, participants could (and would) still be able to do the same good stuff as individuals (ie. fixing up some of the minority of articles which are sent to AfD but which have great promise nonetheless); the difference is that they'd be doing it without an easy mechanism for bringing new people into an AfD solely on the basis that these new people tend to !vote "keep". We should not credit ARS for work that "inclusionists" would do even if ARS didn't exist: Making judgements on the margin, ARS is a canvassing tool. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 14:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

# Yes, they do. Unfortunately not the only group to do so. -- [[User:ТимофейЛееСуда|'''Тимофей''']][[User_talk:ТимофейЛееСуда|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#~~00f00ff~~0f00ff;">ЛееСуда</~~font~~span>''']]. 00:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

#Delsort is not canvassing because it is not biased. All that it does is separate AfDs by topic. Anyone can go from topic to topic choosing keep or delete. The ARS squadron is an inclusionist group started by inclusionists and has mostly all inclusionists. Now that is biased. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

#Per {{user|Ginsengbomb}}, support ''inadvertent''. For example, one member added an [[Special:PermanentLink/482838832#David "Noodles" Aaronson|entry]] requesting "editors ... to assist me in expanding the 'Analysis' section", not to "go to the discussion and offer support". Three ARS members showed up at the AfD to offer support, while [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_%22Noodles%22_Aaronson&dir=prev&offset=20071012204322&action=history none] engaged in content development. [[User:Goodvac|Goodvac]] ([[User talk:Goodvac|talk]]) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

#:I see three people working on the article, one of them only something minor though. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_%22Noodles%22_Aaronson&diff=483740624&oldid=481032243] And the nominator agreed the work was sufficient and withdrew the nomination. MichaelQSchmidt got there first, first to say "keep" in the AFD, and found sources and did a lot of work on the article. So not much work to be done after he was finished. [[User:Dream Focus | '''Dream Focus''']] 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

#::Diego found his way to the AfD through [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)]], not the rescue list, so I'm not including him. Nevertheless, the only ARS member who did substantial work there was MQS. That's why I suggest that the rescue list inadvertently causes canvassing. MQS sought assistance in developing the article and got only votes. Perhaps that article wasn't the best choice for a listing. [[User:Goodvac|Goodvac]] ([[User talk:Goodvac|talk]]) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

# The blatant canvassing is less disruptive than it was several years ago. But the whole group's purpose skirts the line too closely, in my opinion. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

# '''Strong support:''' They used the Rescue tag to get out ARS and ARS-sympathetic members to vote !Keep at AfD. When that was deleted, they created a list that does the same thing (and therefore should also be deleted) [[User:Purplebackpack89|p]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|b]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|p]] 18:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

# In my experience, when someone adds an ARS tag to an AFD discussion, the usual result is that a few ARS members to come to the discussion and !vote "keep". I have never yet seen an ARS tag result in anyone from the ARS actually going to the article and improving it. Personally I pride myself on my own article rescues, but I do them by making improvements to the occasional article that seems rescuable. If I can't improve the article to Wikipedia standards, I !vote delete or merge. If that was the reaction to the ARS tag I would be all for it, but in fact the usual hope seems to be that, by drumming up a few "keep" !votes, the article will be closed as "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". This may be a failure of AGF on my part, but in my opinion that is the usual motivation. Now that I say that, I have an idea for a proposal which I will make below. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Line 247 ⟶ 252:

#I've certainly seen it happen in the past. I don't think it happens to the same degree or with the frequency that it used to do, and I don't think it's a serious problem with the current state of the project. I've also seen it happen in the reverse direction - I've definitely seen delete !votes attracted by an ars posting. I would hope that closing admins evaluate focused enough on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented that !vote stacking, where it does occur, has little or no effect. (Also, any group of people truly interested in canvassing would be doing so offwiki in a nontransparent fashion anyway.) [[User:Kgorman-ucb|Kevin (kgorman-ucb)]] ([[User talk:Kgorman-ucb|talk]]) 18:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#[[User:CallawayRox|CallawayRox]] ([[User talk:CallawayRox|talk]]) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#Convert the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] into a proper delsort list to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delort offering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# TDA's focus on this to the exclusion of every other aspect of ARS's activity is indicative, to me, of the biased and closed-minded attitude he brings to this issue, which he has parlayed into disruption in various places on Wikipedia. He really needs to '''''stop''''', now, or be removed from the project by force, since his focus is not where it should be, on improving the encyclopedia. 04:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beyond My Ken|contribs]])

# '''Oppose''' - Mix equal measures of myth and personal vendetta and this is what you get. It's time for the extremist opponents of ARS to Assume Good Faith. Their template is gone — terrible and misinformed decision though that was — and yet the onslaught continues. Stop this stupidity or verily I say: the boomerang shall strike ye! [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 266 ⟶ 271:

# Of course there are occasional abuses of any system. But balancing the pros & cons, the Article Rescue folks are clearly providing a tremendous net benefit to WP. I've personally seen dozens of notable articles that were tagged for deletion, and the rescue editors researched and added material to improve the article. Reform: Sure, any "keep" votes in an AfD need a specific rationale, but that has always been required, for all voters. One remedy is: the closing admin should notice non-rationale-based "keeps" (esp from Rescue crew) when closing. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Yes, evidence was presented it happens. I don't canvass. I don't see it frequently enough to worry us. ''[[De minimis non curat lex]]''. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Idiocy. The entire canvassing policy is badly worded, and causes more trouble than it's worth, but in either case, editors are allowed to seek others of similar interests and discuss issues with them. If they weren't, all WikiProjects and heck, even RFCs and such would be "bad". And anyway, no policy should stand in the way of free speech. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<~~font~~span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk to me</~~font~~span>]] 15:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# People will misbehave, but that is the fault of individuals and not of the project. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 17:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# If "canvassing" means gathering people to improve articles, yes, otherwise, no. [[User:Extransit|extransit]] ([[User talk:extransit#top|talk]]) 00:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 275 ⟶ 280:

# I've spend a lot of time on AfD recently, and have seen little evidence of this problem (and nothing that I would definitely attribute to ARS people). Canvassing on AfD seems to come from external sources (e.g. a business or band getting their fans to weigh in) and tends to be counterproductive because the arguments are weak or irrelevant. On the other hand, if by "canvassing" you mean actively encouraging people to find sources and improve articles, I don't see much evidence of that happening either, but were it to happen it would be a good thing not a bad thing. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 11:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

# AfDs are not votes. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

# It happens less than it once did, and I think that now to characterize it as "frequently" is inaccurate. [[User:Paul Erik|<~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Comic sans MS;">~~[[User:~~Paul Erik~~|Paul Erik]]~~</~~font~~span>]] <sup~~>[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</~~font>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</~~font~~span>]] 01:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

#In over two years as an ARS member I have not once been canvassed to any particular AfD. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

==== Comments ====

As noted is the description above, canvassing is not limited to how people vote. Going to a group and saying an article nominated for deletion is "notable" and encouraging editors to save it, is not a neutral notification. That is not only the common message provided at the list, but is the kind of message editors are ''instructed'' to leave. Obviously, it gears people towards voting keep to tell them the basis for the nomination is wrong or in some way misguided. Comments like that are fine '''at''' the AfD page, but not in notifications to other editors.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

: A proper delsort does the exact same thing... notifying ANY interested party that an article under their purview warrants attention... yet no one decries adding AFDs to other such project-specific delsorts as canvassing. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 04:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that of the above votes opposing the statement, only one is from someone who is not a spirited defender/member of the Article Rescue Squadron and that editor has also pretty regularly defended the group on a more tepid basis.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 00:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:This comment is neither accurate, nor helpful. Additionally, it is hardly surprising that those who have disagreed with accusations of canvassing w/o anyone actually providing valid evidence of such a serious offense continue to do so when you too fail to provide valid evidence. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just want it to be clear that so far there is no consensus of uninvolved editors. Naturally one expects supporters of the wikiproject to continue being supporters. I didn't want an RfC to get the opinions of the Article Rescue Squadron on its activities.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::You cannot begin an RFC about how ARS should discuss policing itself and then state you do not want the opinions or thoughts of those you have decided to single out. That's not how it works here. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 08:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I mean, I want some actual outside input.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I am thinking that many editors are simply not offering opinion because they are tired of the continued drama based upon articles you sent to AFD being tagged for rescue. Your own words: "...each of these instances was prompted by an article I put at AfD getting tagged by ARS" (far bottom of page).[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposed] If any article was subsequently ''kept'' after being sent to AFD (and not all were), it may perhaps be due to a possible lack of BEFORE when you decided to send them. The issues here then should actually be about your maybe being more careful in what you send to AFD, and your subsequent disagreement with those closes. If you felt the closes were wrong, why did you not take those keeps to [[WP:DRV]] to have them reviewed? If anyone closed incorrectly, there are other means of resolution rather than blaming the innocent hundreds of a project for the AFD opinions of a few, no matter how they arrived at the discussion. And I wish it noted that on the talk pages of other projects we always have editors asking for assistance in improving problematic articles. Guideline allows and encourages discussions seeking input from those willing and able to address issues, without such talkpage requests being automatically declared as canvassing. If your problem is with individuals, deal with individuals. Open discussion on their talk pages and counsel them in Wikipedia processes. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Schmidt, trying to make this about me is not going to change any of the issues here. Anyone is free to look over my contributions at AfD and judge me accordingly, but insinuations about me based off your own suppositions are not welcome. Sure, I only noticed the ARS because they popped into two separate AfDs I started where they voted keep. That does not mean my concerns are illegitimate by any measure or are not being raised in good faith as you are implying. It certainly does not mean this issue is not of wide community concern. All but two of the discussions mentioned above were started by other editors so it would be diversionary to focus on just the ones I started.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Yes... other editors who themselves saw probelmatic behavior in another... just as you assert we have here. We are a community of individuals after all, with each member of the community taking responsibility for their own actions or lack without blaming someone else. And without my having to dig through reams of page history for the answer, can you elucidate on what measures you might have taken to educate or counsel others? I grant that its never required that you counsel anyone ever, but as you perceive problems with individual behavior and then link those individual's behavior to their membership (or not) in a project trying to improve content, I am wondering if you chose other, less flambouyant means by which to address them '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

*I think the entire idea of "inappropriate canvassing" is wrong. The more people participate in AfD discussions the better. Speaking more generally, we must encourage all types of communication in this project, not to discourage them. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

*: I'm afraid you're confusing '''appropriate canvassing''' with '''inappropriate canvassing'''. You are right, the more people are participating, the better, but the canvassing has to take place at a neutral, unbiased area. That would be appropriate since all editors would see it, not just a group of editors who could be/are biased. The inappropriate canvassing taking place in the Article Rescue Squadron is geared towards '''article rescuers''' who may have a bias to vote "keep". If instead you put the canvassing/notifications at [[Wikipedia:Contested Articles for Deletion]] it would be more appropriate since the general community (all editors) would be able to see it. Of course, if the page was biased towards the Article Rescue Squadron, it would have to be deleted and shut down. [[User:BlowingTopHat|Blowing]][[User talk:BlowingTopHat|Top]][[Special:Contributions/BlowingTopHat|Hat]] 18:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 306 ⟶ 311:

#The ARS is necessary to counter the process's inherent bias towards deletionism. [[User:CallawayRox|CallawayRox]] ([[User talk:CallawayRox|talk]]) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#True, but not an issue. People are allowed to have a POV in Wikispace. Using the first project alphabetically as an example, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft]] is welcome to think Aircraft articles deserve more attention than articles of other types. That isn't a "neutral" position, but is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#It's true, but I wouldn't agree that it's a problem. [[User:Reyk|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="~~Maroon~~color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</~~font~~span>]] ~~~~[[User talk:Reyk|'''<~~font~~sub ~~color~~style="~~Blue~~color:blue;">YO!</~~font~~sub>''']]~~~~ 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

#That is true, but then again the "everything must be deleted" standpoint is also a bias. In the end the groups do balance each other out. I have never been involved in ARS related issues apart from when one member some time ago got into some talk page trouble but from a distance always believed them to hold a standpoint close to my own. Apart from the rubbish that comes in at the gates there are a lot of articles where notability is poorly expressed or sourced. When articles are "saved" by addressing these issues, I can't see why anybody should see a problem with that. [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] ([[User talk:Agathoclea|talk]]) 23:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

#Yup. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]} 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

#They are biased towards inclusionism but that in itself is not bad, it's mostly a few problem editors in the group. Inclusionism is not bad, it's the inappropriate canvassing of problem editors that is. [[User:BlowingTopHat|Blowing]][[User talk:BlowingTopHat|Top]][[Special:Contributions/BlowingTopHat|Hat]] 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

# This is correct but the true problem lies in the group's canvassing nature rather than its ideology. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

# Also true, but not the problem. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 10:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

# '''Support:''' Anybody who makes deletionist comments is shouted down over there [[User:Purplebackpack89|p]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|b]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|p]] 21:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Line 317 ⟶ 322:

# I oppose this witch hunt. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#Convert the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] into a proper delsort to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delsort offering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. Problems with any individuals is addressed by educating those few indivuduals, not by chastising the other 300 who do good work. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#Nothing that endorses established content retention standards, such as Verifiability and Notability, and encourages editors to help articles meet those standards, is inappropriately inclusionist. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# It represents the process fine, except that it is polite enough not to discuss the operations of those who routinely inappropriately nominate articles for deletion. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 336 ⟶ 341:

::The page on WikiProject Convervatism does not have a bias ingrained into its pages. It basically says "this is about improving articles related to conservatism" and that does not suggest anything with respect to AfD. As to AfD, it is actually only biased towards deletion in the respect of its name and the fact the nominator argues for deletion. The page for AfD does not encourage deletion and instructs editors to check for sources or see if the article can be improved before nominating. The problems with AfD would be relatively simple to fix and do not require a "shadow AfD" for the more inclusionist-oriented members to [[WP:BATTLE|combat]] the bias. As I have said several times to other editors, if you have a problem with AfD you should brainstorm on a solution to that problem rather than creating new problems to prove the problem exists.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

* @MQS: Does your oppose to this statement reflect comfort with leaving the ARS WikiProject pages biased in favor of inclusion so long as the Rescue List tool is converted to a neutral, non ARS-hosted delsort? [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 23:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

**Ahh, back to the issue. ALL projects that encourages the building and improvement of articles (IE: Project Film or Project Actors) to make them better for the prohect, are inclusionistic. And as long as their thoughts on such issues is kept on their talk pages, I see no problem with that inclusionism. The problem here is that the current destination of the delsort template {{tls|Rescue list}} is to the ''naturally'' inclusionist discussions at [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list]], when they should be going to a properly neutral delsort just as with any other project. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 08:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if this is true, so what? This is totally acceptable per our policies. I could argue that the entire deletion process favors deletionism, btw (with the exception of the undeletion process, obviously). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<~~font~~span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk to me</~~font~~span>]] 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

* The project page reflects an inclusionist view of the deletion process, but does not appear to be inappropriately "biased." It appears to be fully consistent with the governing Wikipedia AFD policies. [[User:Fagles|Fagles]] ([[User talk:Fagles|talk]]) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

*I revised the lead[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron&oldid=483709087] to focus on the Wikiproject's content efforts.-- [[User:Uzma Gamal|Uzma Gamal]] ([[User talk:Uzma Gamal|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 352 ⟶ 357:

==== Support ====

#Agree. We do not essentially topic ban the entire membership of a project simply over unproven allegations of canvassing of a few of its menbers. We instead deal with the indviduals themselves through the processes in place for doing just that '''if''' actually true. Convert the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] into a proper delsort list to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delort offering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#The deletion process inevitably bites many newbies, some of whom stay anyway, and some of those gravitate towards ARS. How we channel those editors and their enthusiasm to help into saving the articles that can be saved and are worth saving is an ongoing exercise. But if ARS didn't exist we would need to invent it anyway, and gently guide new members into ways of finding sources and spotting the rescuable. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#:Which is why I wrote [[WP:PRIMER]] and [[WP:NAY]]. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# Hear hear: ''The ARS is not a perfect wikiproject, but it represents an important safeguard in the deletion process of WP.'' [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# Well put. ''If'' someone or some group of people is acting inappropriately (and this has certainly not been demonstrated to be true), the problem lies with the editor or editors. To blame a WikiProject for an individual's behavior is ridiculous. If ARS did not exist, there is little doubt that its members would be equally interested in AfD and !vote on similar articles (the ones worth saving in their POV). --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 360 ⟶ 365:

#Agreed, the topic ban idea is a complete non-starter. Unworkable, easily gamed by the few users it would be intended to stop as they could just quit, and a precedent, i.e. topic banning an entire group of users who are "guilty" only by association that we shouldn't even be considering setting.. Topic bans are for specific users, not large groups. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 01:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# And indeed, the editors who have a non-conformist view of notability aren't themselves a problem, provided they engage respectfully, appropriately, and are prepared to be accorded appropriate weight based on the strength of their arguments as judged against consensus inclusion guidelines. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# Certainly. [[User:Reyk|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="~~Maroon~~color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</~~font~~span>]] ~~~~[[User talk:Reyk|'''<~~font~~sub ~~color~~style="~~Blue~~color:blue;">YO!</~~font~~sub>''']]~~~~ 01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

# I agree here. I'm a "member" of the ARS and I think most people would consider me more deletionist than inclusionist, since I favor strong reforms of the subject-specific notability guidelines. I even created one of the now-deleted rescue templates at one point. There's a small minority of people in ARS who believe that we should be far more inclusionist, and I think that's a valid position, albeit not one I agree with. I don't think it's disruptive for them to have an opinion, even if it's an unpopular opinion and one that I disagree strongly with. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

# I also agree with what Scotty has written (and if you had asked me if that was possible a year ago, I would have laughed quite heartily!). The problems this RfC seeks to address are not systemic to the ARS. They are limited to certain editors. '''[[User:JimMillerJr|Jim Miller]]''' [[Special:Contributions/JimMillerJr|See me]] | [[User talk:JimMillerJr|Touch me]] 16:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 366 ⟶ 371:

# Completely agree. For the record, I am not a member of ARS. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Very well put. – [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj| +]] 12:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# [[User:Paul Erik|<~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Comic sans MS;">~~[[User:~~Paul Erik~~|Paul Erik]]~~</~~font~~span>]] <sup~~>[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</~~font>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</~~font~~span>]] 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# ''[[Cy pres]]'' to my opinion. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Reasonable. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<~~font~~span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk to me</~~font~~span>]] 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# This is exactly what I was thinking: "If there is an editor who behaving inappropriately, or who is not pulling in the same direction as the rest of the wikiproject, then that editor needs to be dealt with on an individual basis." Amen. [[User:Fagles|Fagles]] ([[User talk:Fagles|talk]]) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 382 ⟶ 387:

::The "Desired Outcomes" section of this RfC talks at length about the ARS ceasing all contributions to AfD's. {{xt|"The Article Rescue Squadron should either radically reform its practices or cease all involvement in deletion discussions..."}} Unless I'm misunderstanding your intent, I don't see that as significantly different than banning the ARS from AfD. As for the mention of my proposals at VP, I clearly noted that I was only mentioning them to stir discussion, not as an attempt to see them implemented. [[User:Scottywong|—SW—]] [[User talk:Scottywong|yak]] 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::If you look a little lower you will see that I said "the alternative suggestion that they cease involvement in deletion discussion is not intended . . . to stop any editors in the ARS from commenting at AfD."--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 21:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::As you use me as a example of an editor who repairs article that have not been on the ARS list, I appreciate your alerting me to your RFC on my talk page. Of course, my repairing articles NOT on the ARS list could just as easily be used as evidence that '''other''' project's delsorts act as canvassing just as you claim the ARS's list does. Making your RFC about inclusionists versus deletionists, and then using only examples of a few select comments in your nearly TLDR presentation from a few select and non-typical "inclusionists" does not give a properly balanced picture. I counter-propose (as I have both above and in earlier ANIs) that we convert the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] into a delsort to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delort ofering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::There is a significant difference between a delsort for project X and ARS. With ARS there is the intention of saving the articles. With other projects, the intention is to bring people familiar with the subject to the AFD to provide expert opinion on the subject. Project X delsort isn't intended to "save" the article and will often result in users from Project X coming over to !vote delete because they realize that the subject isn't notable.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:purple;">Balloonman</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|Poppa Balloon]]'' 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::A valid point, but I suggested a delsort in the first place in order to maintain the neutrality that TDA seems to feel the ARS project lacks. It really breaks down to perceptions toward individuals. Educating editors is far preferred over sanctions against an entire project. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we ''ever'' placed any such restriction on an entire project before? I'm thinking not, because it is an insane premise. i have always been of the opinion that it is only a small minority of ARS members that cause the vast majority of the problemsand indeed it is those very users who are the least involved in work that actually improves content, they just argue at AFD. They think they are in some great battle and they want to win it. The rest of us, whether self-identified rescuers or not, are more concerned with improving the encyclopedia than winning. And it would be absurdly easy to game such a restriction anyway. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Schmidt, stop misrepresenting what has been suggested. Reform, real reform not the cosmetic changes you have proposed, takes precedence over any form of restriction. However, even there it is simply to say the group should not get involved as opposed to individual editors. Just because editors might get around such a restriction does not mean Wikipedia should make it easier to engage in such activity. Of course, ''significant'' reform would erase the need for that.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::It takes time and patience. We start by dealing with perceptions and then work toward education. Stating so is not misrepresntation. Rome was not built in one day. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 21:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::TDA, there's no possible difference between banning the group or banning individual editors, because the group is made of individuals. This has always been a gaping hole in the logic of this RfC. Either members of the ARS can fully participate in deletion discussions or they can't. If they can, you have achieved nothing, since "the group" does not have a user account to write opinions at AfDs; if they can't, you have banned hundreds of individuals. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

{{out}}Of course there is a difference. The project page is being used to direct people to AfD. Ceasing to be involved would be a simple matter of changing the wording on the project page to not mention involvement in AfD and preventing editors from directing people to AfD from the project page. Individual editors would be free to go the AfD page, or associated delsort pages to contribute. At that point it would become a matter of monitoring behavior by individual editors who would no longer be able to hide behind the ARS. If the ARS refuses to fix the canvassing issue with the project, then the only way to satisfactorily prevent it from being used for canvassing is to expunge all mention of deletion discussions from the project pages.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:Apparently, you ARE the one monitoring individual behavior... but are blaming a project to which individuals belong, rather than blame any one individual behavior. '''ALL''' proper delsorts act to neutrally direct their project members to articles at AFD that are of interest to their memberships and, as being properly neutral delsdorts, we do not call those delsorsts "canvassing". As you noted above, it was [[User:Northamerica1000]] that created the Rescue List and placed it on the ARS project page. This is ONE individual's actions that apparently re-fired your ardour... yet you have chosen, in yet [[WP:BLUD|another discussion]] instituted by you about the ARS within a very short span of time, to request sanction of the entire membership of hundreds of individuals based upon your ''perception'' of the utility or use of the list created by one individual. While it might have been more prudent to suggest NA1k move his list to a subpage of his userspace, your chastising hundreds of others and an entire project is not helpful. You speak about how the ARS should do this or do that as if the ARS were one person or as if their was a clear hiearchy of management to that project. You fail to acknowledge that you are actually spaking about hundreds of different individuals. That NA1K has been active in trying to revamp the project so as to encourgae that weak articles get improved while their clocks tick to zero, is laudable... but if you have issues with THAT individual or how HE seeks to address the very real problem of certain notable topics being sent to AFD when thay might indeed be improved to serve the project, then deal with THAT individual. Or is the true bone of your contention the argument that ALL projects should not have delsorts and that ALL projects should not be allowed to discuss weak articles on their project talk pages? '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::See my response pretty much everywhere else on this page about the claim of "wanting sanctions against all members" and about delsorts. A few of those responses were made to you before you made this comment so I have a hard time seeing how you could not notice that I have already addressed those issues several times. As to North, he was the one who created the list, but he is far from being the only editor to have used the list. Many members, and non-members, have used the list. Clearly that is not a matter of individual editors or even individual members since anyone can post on the list.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::NA1K's list belongs on the ARS talk page for its members to then discuss issues, or in his userspace. It is not a proper delsort. And as this page is a changing and mutating discussion, and in its being quite long, with various remarks and comments spread all over the place, it's a bit difficult to answer each of your many comments in only one response in only one location. I read the aforementioned ANI where you were topic banned.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposed] I read the statements you made that were subsequently struck out. I see a repeated behavior of your not liking that ARS menbers and non-members alike addressed issues with articles you sent to AFD. I see you complaining about the whole ARS based upon a few weak examples that do not actually ''prove'' your contention of blatant canvassing. I see that while complaining about the AFD closes, you have not taken the closes to DRV. I also see that you do not agree a neutral delsort that emmulates the neutral delsorts of other projects is a reasonable beginning to assessing perceptions, in that you want it ALL FIXED NOW and do not agree that projects are allowed to discuss solutions to problematic articles on their talk pages. My perception is that we are here because you do not wish to respect the consensus arrived at at a few AFDs, and while not feeling the closes correct you have still not taken the [[WP:DRV|steps]] to have those closes reviewed. We do not burn down the house because one person may have seen a mouse. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 21:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I would like this to be my last response to you since you seem intent on making baseless and irrelevant insinuations about me even though most of the cases provided above see no involvement on my part. Now, see my additional statement about the delsort and the example given on WP:GAME. Even if you could provide a neutrally-worded delsort, it would be meaningless without changes to the ARS page itself as you would effectively have a partisan notification to members directing them to the delsort, thus negating the neutrality of the delsort itself.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 23:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 402 ⟶ 407:

==== Support ====

#Agree wholeheartedly. Despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ([[Template:Article Rescue Squadron Code of Conduct|"The project is not about casting '''!votes''' (and therefore not about vote-stacking). For example, if you work on an article that has been listed for rescue, try to add reliable-source references and edit the content to address concerns raised in the AfD discussion, rather than just 'vote and scoot.'"]]), most ARS regulars do little to no content work on articles raised at the rescue list. They just show up at the AfD to vote keep and when the article is kept, label it a valiant rescue. A minority actually work on articles, revamping and sourcing them. [[User:Goodvac|Goodvac]] ([[User talk:Goodvac|talk]]) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#*Actually, most of the majority who improve articles have learned to avoid discussion like these. And many of the more vocal minority of experienced editors who were first involved in the ARS have left Wikipedia entirely. So it appears it is the behavior of an uneducated minority or of unschooled newcomers that has brought us to discuss the ARS once again. Education is better than sanctions. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 04:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#**Some of those who "vote and scoot" are neither uneducated nor new. They have been established editors for quite some time, and I wouldn't expect them to be amenable to education. [[User:Goodvac|Goodvac]] ([[User talk:Goodvac|talk]]) 16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#Mostly per the second green box, which coincides with my thoughts perfectly. (The rest makes sense, too.) The labels "inclusionist" and "deletionist", while arguably sometimes accurate, are inherently polarizing. Their widespread use promotes an us-against-them mindset that can make the process of reaching consensus more difficult. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#The second box is bang on. We do have free speech here. But these are two words that never improve the quality of the discussion. Inherently polarizing indeed. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 06:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# per above --[[User:Guerillero|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#0b0080;">Guerillero</~~font~~span>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">My Talk</~~font~~span>]] 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

#Been watching this RfC and wasn't going to comment, but I have to agree with this, though without agreeing that ''everyone'' involved in the project doesn't improve articles. And I think [[WP:BEFORE]] is lacking when looking at noms, as well. It unfortunately seems to be far easier for someone to nom an article than to actually work on that article. '''IDONTLIKEIT/IDONTWANTIT''' is just as much a "voting" problem as the reverse. Just more examples of "[[WP:WINNING|Winning Wikipedia the game]]".- [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

#Yes, though I feel that replacing the rescue template with the list has been a huge step in the right direction. The list facilitates discussion, the template never did. [[User:Reyk|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="~~Maroon~~color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</~~font~~span>]] ~~~~[[User talk:Reyk|'''<~~font~~sub ~~color~~style="~~Blue~~color:blue;">YO!</~~font~~sub>''']]~~~~ 01:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

#Most of what Uncle G said mirrors my one experience with the ARS. I [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge |nommed]] an [[Knight's Bridge|article]], members of the ARS appeared, the focus of the article changed, and I withdrew the nomination. This should have been a win-win all around. We could have ended up with an interesting article on a former historic bridge (or even decided to merge the info somewhere useful). Instead, I had such a bad feeling from the experience that I didn't work to improve the article even though I went to the actual brick and mortar library to find sources. So it is still a pathetic stub that still doesn't show why it was notable. Note that members of ARS did not make much of an effort to improve the article and seemed mostly focused on [[WP:WINNING|winning]]. They won, and I took my toys and went home. I admit I was in a bad mood that day, but it would have helped if the "keep" people had done more work on the article and had the skill to better interpret the available sources. Their apparent focus on "winning" makes them seem rather hostile, rather than collaborative and productive. [[User:Valfontis|Valfontis]] ([[User talk:Valfontis|talk]]) 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

#Fully agree. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]] 18:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 415 ⟶ 420:

#This. My personal approach to AfD is to vote based on policy, not on an -ism. And I love to write, but hate to research, so I would welcome someone hand-delivering sources on a platter that would allow me to improve an article. Yet I won't touch ARS with a ten-foot pole, due to the reputation the project has earned, and personal experience with !votes by ARS members at AfD which, ''in my opinion'', are based on -isms, not policy. I've been party to too many AfDs where ARS members drive-by the discussion. It is a shame that there isn't a neutral place where researchers and writers can connect and collaborate. [[User:Livitup|Livit'''⇑''']][[User talk:Livitup|Eh?]]/[[Special:Contributions/Livitup|What?]] 02:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

# I wasn't originally going to bother with this RfC either, but I agree completely with the second green box, which is spot on. Case in point: contrary to what is implied in the opening remarks of this RfC, I wrote [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state]] a long time ago to make a valid interpretation of standing policy and to generate further debate, not to advance the interests of "inclusionism" and to battle "deletionism". The most common label it has gotten from other editors is actually "eventualist", but I have never given it a label, as I think deletionism vs. inclusionism and immediateism vs. eventualism are both ultimately [[false dilemma]]s which advance an ideologically driven and personalized debate. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]] · [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]] 23:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

# Count me in. I joined ARS and used it to locate articles that needed work. Now I use SuggestBot. Rescue does not mean participating in AFDs - it means writing. [[User:Jojalozzo|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#500000;">Joja]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|~~Joja]]~~<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#005000;">~~[[User talk:Jojalozzo|~~lozzo]]</~~font~~span>]] 02:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

# As one of the founders of ARS back in the day, I hope it means something when I say that Uncle G ''gets it'' about what ARS was supposed to be: a way to alert people that an article that shouldn't be deleted was about to be because it was written so poorly. Unfortunately, humans being humans, we find that it is far easier to slap templates or add an opinion to debates on WP:AfD & WP:AN/I, or nominate crappy articles for deletion, than to actually improve stubs or crappy articles. Then there is the issue that articles are saved from deletion, but are ignored until someone decides to nominate them again for deletion. Reasons like these are why ARS hasn't succeeded as we hoped it would. (FWIW, almost all of the articles I have saved from deletion have not been as part of ARS, just spending the time & effort to do what was needed to save them from being inadvertently deleted.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

# +like '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

#Per the pretty green boxen. ''Only kidding....'' somewhat. As long as it's done seriously, I see no major issues with ARS. The template was used, as Llywrch points out, to alert concerned users, but it has been abused as a loophole to canvassing. 00:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Line 433 ⟶ 438:

**There is nothing wrong with pointing out that a nominator failed to find sources when a trivial search turned up plenty. The point of BEFORE is to preclude nominations of articles which have obvious encyclopedic potential, and nominators who ignore it entirely are doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

*"Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis". I write on lots of obscure crap, but there was no way I was wading into that. Plus its a content fork (maybe a reasonable one) on articles about the subprime mortgage crisis, so its not like any good content wouldn't have a home.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • [[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]][[User talk:Milowent|spoken]] 04:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

*:Agree. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticle_Rescue_Squadron&diff=481629988&oldid=481614415 THIS] [[WP:IAR|"bold"]] edit. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 04:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I appreciate the sentiment, but that doesn't even change anything. Cleanup is an improvement, but it doesn't make an article worthy of keeping. Pretty much all the problem editors you talk about make some form of improvement to articles. The issue is that those improvements often do not address the concerns raised at AfD. What you added also does nothing to discourage canvassing. Honestly, the insertion seems hasty and hostile more than anything.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 18:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Your solution of wishing to essentially topic ban an entire project seems a bit more "hasty and hostile". We cannot dictate how editors edit, only educate them in our processes and encouurage them to edit constructively. And then use the in-place processes to deal with those whose actions or edits are disruptive. The blockquite was set as a caution, one that that may actually be heeded... or perhaps ignored. By it stating boldly that from thinking that membership is just such a free pass. We take it one day at a time and do not burn down the house because someone claims to have ''maybe'' seen a mouse. Wikipedia and the slow evolution of its various wikiprojects is an ongoing [[WP:WIP|work in progress]]. And as an encyclopedia built over years and through the efforts of thousands of individual personalities trying to [[WP:COMMUNITY|work together]], we strive for, but do [[WP:IMPERFECT|not expect nor demand]] immediate pefection... of the encyclopedia, its projects, or of ourselves. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 09:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but my preferred solution is that the wikiproject page is changed so that it ceases to bias editors towards a certain outcome in deletion discussions. Focusing it on improving article rather than getting involved in discussions is another part of that preferred solution. I suggest the group stay out of such discussions only if the members resist such radical reform, and it would need to be radical given the project's current state. Saying that it is a "work in progress" is not a justification for its current state and not a reason for failing to make immediate and significant change. Sure you can't make people abide by WP:CANVASS, but you could sure try a hell of a lot harder to persuade them against it.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Actually, "[[WP:WIP|Work in progress]]" indicates my understanding that even Wikipedia grants that it is not [[WP:IMPERFECT|immediately perfect]] and that allows improvements to be performed over time and through regular editing... and that this understanding that patience is encouraged applies to its various ongoing wiki projects just as to individual articles.

Line 446 ⟶ 451:

::::::#DO you agree or disagree that problems with individual behavior, no matter where such occurs, should be dealt with by dealing with those individuals?

::::::#Do you agree or disagree that changes usually take time and that demanding it all happen '''NOW''' is not reasonable?

:::::::'''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

* Well-stated, even if I can't agree with more than 90 % of it, and very funny besides. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by a random dude===

Me thinks you all need to worry less about a group of wikipedians who improve articles and worry more about building better content, fighting vandalism, and nuking copyright violations. [[Special:Contributions/204.167.92.26|204.167.92.26]] ([[User talk:204.167.92.26|talk]]) 22:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:Imagine how many articles might have been improved and rescued in the time it took to research and prepare this RFC. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::Be that as it may, the RFC is open so we might as well discuss how to improve the situation. Anyone who thinks that is a waste of time is welcome to do something else instead. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Michael is absolutely correct. This whole thing is a dramafest and should be immediately deleted. Those who opened this should be cautioned from further disruption of Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/204.167.92.26|204.167.92.26]] ([[User talk:204.167.92.26|talk]]) 22:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::So far we have been having a relatively polite discussion on a subject that has repeatedly been the subject of debate. Trying to resolve those issues in a civil and polite manner is not disruptive, and there is no policy based reason to delete this page. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::So far, no shouting. And TDA has already been sanctioned about involvement and drama with the ARS. This RFC was introduced only after he got permission. I think we best resolve this with education of only a few editors. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::That would apply to any case where someone files a report on misconduct. It would also apply to admins who get distracted from editing to deal with misconduct. Maybe Wikipedia would be better if admins stopped dealing with misconduct and just edited articles. Note: This editor is totally being sarcastic. --[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Maybe Wikipedia would be better if you were less obsessive about the ARS and re-focused on the primary purpose on being here, improving the encycylopedia. Note: This editor is being entirely serious, and is pretty annoyed that this circus has yet to leave town, despite the community being quite clear in its displeasure with the continued harping on the subject from one disgruntled editor. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 468 ⟶ 473:

==== Oppose ====

#Accusation of current canvassing are not proven, so saying canvassing will continue is baseless. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

#Editing habits of a few will continue no matter what project they belong to or not. No basis for such bad faith assumptions. The answer that ultimately improves the project is education in its processes. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

#Ordinary user behavior is being misinterpreted as canvassing. TDA says "The suggestion for a delsort would not satisfy [his] concerns about canvassing", but at this point it is pretty clear that only changing ARS so that it is no longer ARS will satisfy his concerns about canvassing. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 486 ⟶ 491:

# Agree. Problems that the author has with the behaviour of individual editors should be raised with those editors and then, if necessary, escalated through the steps outlined in [[WP:DR]]. This RfC, which is targetting a whole group and trying to draw battle lines between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", is unhelpful and unnecessarily combative. For the record, I am not a member of ARS. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 09:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Here, here! [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

==== Oppose ====

Line 503 ⟶ 508:

==== Support ====

#Yet another example of when a badly designed and worded policy (canvassing) has a potential to hurt good editors and a worthy project. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<~~font~~span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk to me</~~font~~span>]] 15:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# "[ARS] is attempting to influence the out-come by making the page under discussion clearly eligible for inclusion, not by recruiting discussers" --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 527 ⟶ 532:

:::The problem is you see this in terms of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and a personal vendettas, and dismiss ~40% of feedback with a back of the hand because 'it's just people who agree with DA, so their concerns obviously don't matter'. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]} 15:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Headbomb - I don't think I have ever written the words that you attribute to me above, or expressed any opinion that is similar to that in any way. I think you are making things up. And I don't believe that is an acceptable or civil way for you to contribute to this discussion. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 16:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

# Much needed, unless a significant change can come from this RfC. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

==== Oppose ====

Line 550 ⟶ 555:

::I think you misunderstood my proposal. It was not intended to direct people to AfD from the ARS project page, but from guidelines and projects like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]] and [[Wikipedia:AfD Patrol]] that currently suggest the ARS as a related noticeboard. I suggested replacing the Rescue List with a neutralized version, which basically removed everything that you described as problematic in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_Rescue_Squadron#Campaigning|Campaigning]] section in your draft version of this RfC. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::No, I did not misunderstand it. Your proposal still suggested that the ARS be involved in such discussions, but that it would be specifically involved in a new noticeboard spun off from the list called "disputed deletion discussions" that plainly reads like a POV fork of AfD.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::The current [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|rescue list]] '''SHOULD''' be set up as a neutral page as is done for other wikiprojects listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact|HERE]], and its current content sent to [[Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron|their talk page]] where such specifc discussions toward improvement of specific articles belong, '''and''' where the more experieced members can guide newcomers who may misundertsnad the improvement or AFD proceses. Education is the answer, not sanctions. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 04:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::*@DA: That's the whole point of a community noticeboard, that everybody can participate. Can you explain exactly what's wrong with that? [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 06:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::::If you can't see how a project page that bombards people with messages favoring inclusion directing people towards a noticeboard called "disputed deletion discussions" is not a real change then that just goes to my point above that internal reform by ARS will achieve nothing but cosmetic fixes without addressing the actual problem. You yourself admitted that proposal was due to fearing the outcome of the RfC and not wanting to test it.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 15:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 578 ⟶ 583:

# Of course. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan (talk)]] 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#[[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# A noninclusionist, nondeletionist member. [[User:Jojalozzo|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#500000;">Joja]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|~~Joja]]~~<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#005000;">~~[[User talk:Jojalozzo|~~lozzo]]</~~font~~span>]] 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# I always appreciate calm reason. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# Rationality is always appreciated (or should be, anyway). [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# Thank you. It's much more fun (and less work) to use RFCs to make annihilating attacks though, so I don't expect this very sensible proposal will gain much real world traction. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust, B.Ed.]] [[User talk:Armbrust|<sup~~><font~~ ~~color~~style="color:#E3A857;">~~[[User talk:Armbrust|~~Let's talk]]</~~font~~sup><]][[Special:Contributions/~~sup>~~Armbrust|<sub~~><font~~ ~~color~~style="color:#008000;">~~[[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|~~about my edits?~~]]~~]] 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# Couldn't have said it better myself. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 00:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# No Wikiproject is restricted to one viewpoint. Consider Wikiprojects covering contentious political and social topics, for instance. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

#I can get behind this. --[[User:Guerillero|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#0b0080;">Guerillero</~~font~~span>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">My Talk</~~font~~span>]] 18:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

#And at this point a plug for [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications]] might be useful for the rescuers for are looking for not ready available sources on a regular basis. [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] ([[User talk:Agathoclea|talk]]) 17:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

#I agree, although I think Beetlebrox might not agree with me. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

#All projects need more members, so this is a helpful idea. With the provision that the editors who join would be interested in rescuing the articles, not in sabotaging ARS work or such. AGF, of course. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<~~font~~span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk to me</~~font~~span>]] 15:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

#Moral support. I can only handle belonging to one project, but as a person who has done a few non-AfD, non-ARS rescues ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pleasant_Valley,_Baker_County,_Oregon&diff=418666688&oldid=418531102], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren,_Oregon&diff=207299984&oldid=207298367], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloucher,_Oregon&diff=444205189&oldid=444181492], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leaburg,_Oregon&diff=207653043&oldid=207633255], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silver_Lake_(Oregon)&diff=162724857&oldid=162724222], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surf_Pines,_Oregon&oldid=399402354] is how it's done, folks) I'd be willing to actually help improve articles the ARS has taken an interest in--''if'' they are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I guess I'm a Whatever-That-Absurdly-Long-Acronym-Is -ist.) [[User:Valfontis|Valfontis]] ([[User talk:Valfontis|talk]]) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Agreed, though I think that more people would join if it were renamed "Article Improvement Squadron." In that case, it could still have as one of its stated goals "to improve articles at AfD to the point that most reasonable editors would !vote 'keep'." [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 20:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

# Welcome conclusion. ```[[User: Buster7|'''Buster Seven''']][[User talk:Buster7|''' Talk''']] 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Line 599 ⟶ 604:

====Discussion====

Ok, I don't intend to get too involved in this RfC, but this proposal has to be commented on. I mean, this proposal is really kina academic isn't it? It is one of those nice sounding platatudes, but it really amounts to nothing? Would TDA be any more effective changing the ARS if he put a box on his page saying that he was a member? No. Would the others who have had issues with ARS be more effective at getting changes if they "joined the club"? No. People generally don't join groups that they have philosophical differences with. Telling a deletionist to join ARS if they want to see change is tantamount to telling a Pro-lifer to sign on to the staff at Planned Parenthood. It's a nice sounding tidbit, which on the surface is easy to support... but in the end is really meaningless. Changing subcultures here at Wikipedia is not just a matter of adding a box to one's user page, it is sometimes virtually impossible. I mean, how many years have people been complaining about RfA and how that process is broken? The biggest changes I've seen in this community have not come as a result of "self reflection" and internal realization, but rather from outside forces calling out problems. Sorry, this proposal sounds nice and grand... it sounds like it is challenging people who disagree to do something positive... but it ultimately is meaningless.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:purple;">Balloonman</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|Poppa Balloon]]'' 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:I don't mean "joining" in the sense of just putting a userbox on your page, that doesn't do anything more than putting a "I support our troops" bumper sticker on your SUV in Idaho does for troop morale in Afghanistan.

Line 614 ⟶ 619:

===Proposal from Michael Q. Schmidt===

I propose that we finally convert the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] into a proper delsort to bring it more in line with other existng wikiprojects... and as a delsort offering transparency, it will no more be "canvassing" than is any other project's delsort. If this RFC was created as the result of the behavior of a few typical or atypical individuals, then we discuss those individuals and their behavior in another forum, rather than take an entire project to task for ''perceptions'' over the actions and words of a few. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And a note, due to past events where ARS members were targeted simply because of that userbox banner they placed on their userpage, I decided to retain my membership while instead creating a differnt userbox which can be seen on my userpage... among others for other projects. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

====Support====

#Great idea, we have dozens (hundreds?) of delsort lists, we should absolutely make this one of them and treat it like any other. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#Yup, hundreds. As below in comments, discussions curently at the non-standard [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] can be moved to their talk page and the current list can be transcluded properly to a real ARS Delsort. On the ARS talk page editors who will benefit from education can be singled out for schooling about the what and why and how to actually improve articles. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# A good idea. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# MQS proposes something very reasonable and fair here. It would reduce many of the problems, perceived and real. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 06:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 628 ⟶ 633:

# Standardization can both eliminate the unfounded complaints about the list's purpose, as well as attract more editors to the listed articles. I regularly watch about a dozen delsort lists, and haven't looked at the raw AfD logs in ages. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# Good idea. For the record, I am not a member of ARS. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Sortlist, presumably with Article Alerts notification, is never a bad tool. It could be watchlisted by any editor, not only ARS members. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<~~font~~span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk to me</~~font~~span>]] 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

# Support, as a great and (now) obvious idea. [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 02:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

# Great idea. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

# No reason not to try this, even if its ''in addition'' to another method of organization. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

====Oppose====

# First establish the combined deleting sorting list. THEN we'll see if ARS has been rendered obsolete. Under no circumstances should the project be externally liquidated in favor of an untried, untested "alternative" structure. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#:'''Not at all''' suggesting liqudation. If article currently on their [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] is at AFD, then we add those articles to a proper and neutral delsort list. The discussions currently on the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Rescue List]] are then moved to their ARS talk page so ARS editors might still share and discuss article issues and concerns transparently. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::*I don't understand, are you suggesting having two lists in parallel with exactly the same purpose but just slightly different formats? [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Nope. The current "list" is simply a set of discussions or requests for rescue and not a proper delsort. Discussions are best served on the project's talk page. Artcles at AFD are best served by being in proper delsorts. I propose to separate the two to elminate future issues. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::*If converting the Content Rescue List to a neutral delsort is equivalent to "externally liquidating" the entire project, we've got a much bigger problem here than I thought :). The ARS is more than the Content Rescue List. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::::No recomendation for liquidation from me. Create the proper and neutral delsort to emmulate other projects. Move the various discussions from their "rescue list" to the project's talk page where they belong. Put the ARS to work. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Understood -- I was suggesting to Carrite that your proposal != liquidation. Your proposal is simple and effective. And, long-winded argumentative gasbag that I often am, ''I hate you for it.'' :D [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' because there are no criteria for what constitutes a "rescuable" article. Anybody can slap this label on any AfD discussion. All the other delsorts have some basis; they relate in some way to what the article is about - be it music, or France, or politicians, or whatever. That allows the people who have interest or expertise in music, or France, or politicians, to zero in on discussions where they might have interest or be able to contribute. But the "rescue" delsort tag would be totally generic; theoretically it could be added to every single article at AfD. IMO when someone sees an AfD about which they feel passionately enough to want to rescue it, they shouldn't scream for the cavalry - they ought to rescue it themselves, by improving the article. Or they ought to post something in the actual discussion, saying "Here are some sources, I don't have the time or expertise to add them to the article, would somebody please add them if you find them persuasive?" It could be much more effective. There actually are people who patrol the AfDs, or particular delsort areas, looking for articles that need some help. Far better to appeal to them than to some generic "come and save me!" patrol. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Line 648 ⟶ 653:

What would this actually entail? Just a requirement to add Note: This debate has been included in the [[WP:RESCUELIST|list of articles to be rescued by the Article Rescue Squadron]]. to every AfD that appears on the rescue list? Anything else that would need to change? [[User:Scottywong|—SW—]] [[User talk:Scottywong|confess]] 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:That exists already: {{tls|Rescue list}}. [[User:Goodvac|Goodvac]] ([[User talk:Goodvac|talk]]) 22:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::Wow. I was never informed that [[User:BrownHairedGirl]] created this last month.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rescue_list&action=history] Do we have the delsort page for this as well? And cautions about how and when the template can or should be used? '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 23:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::And to note: I do see that the template links back to [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list]], but that page itself does not resemble the more common delsort pages that simply list articles of interest to their various projects. If THAT inconsistancy is addressed, we have a winner. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Agreed, make it work like any other delsort list, just a list of transcluded AFDs for those interested. If consensus at the ARS talk page is that a particular item shouldn't be on it it can be removed and the delsort notice struck out of the AFD. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::'''Support''' Discussions curently at the misformed [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|ARS Delsort]] can be moved to their talk page and the current list can be transcluded properly. On the ARS talk page editors who will benefit from education can be singled out for schooling about the what and why and how to actually improve articles. . '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 23:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Does anybody know how to transclude the AfDs tagged with <nowiki>rescue list</nowiki>?[[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is, of course, not a solution. In many ways it would be worse than the rescue tag and the current rescue list. At least those direct people to the article first. This would take people right to the AfD and, if transcluded to the ARS project page, would make the bombardment of keep votes mind-numbingly easy. You would see the return of that drive-by tagging, except it wouldn't be so blindingly obvious. The rescue tag, with all its faults, had one thing going for it: it was about as subtle as a gay pride parade. A tiny bit of text in an AfD may get noticed by the initiated, but it will be much harder to notice for those not familiar with the issue.

Line 661 ⟶ 666:

::Saying "everybody is free to follow it" completely ignores a huge chunk of the objection. When you inundate people with information favoring a certain conclusion, the inevitable result is you get more people favoring that conclusion. It is why WP:CANVASS requires a neutral notification. A delsort that just plops the AfD up at the ARS page does not address that issue one iota.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::The "objection" here is for the most part yours. The discussions currently at the "ARS Rescue List" belongs on the ARS talk page, and should not be pretending to be a delsort when it is not. And then we need the creation of an actually neutral delsort page that emmulates those of other projects. And any such neutral notices about articles in that delsort will be just as guideline and policy instruct. You are aware that there is a neutral notification template that [[WP:AFD]] suggests be used?

:::And if you do find actual cases of canvassing by an individual, rather than innuendo and allegation, deal with THAT individiual, and not any of the projects to which he might belong. It's that simple. And if we are trying to make ARS and its delsort as neutral as possible (which ''seems'' to ne your goal), why fight us doing so?? And in looking over your responses to folks here when they offer ideas for addressing your concerns, do you really wish the issues addressed or are you just blowing smoke up our skirts? We address issues one at a time and do not burn down the house simply because someone thought he saw a mouse. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 08:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

* I don't object to this happening, but I don't see that it would make any difference. The idea that if the ARS were to do this then listing a debate on such a delsort category would be no different from listing it under any other is flawed. Every other page in [[:Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting]] sorts articles by subject matter, something that would not be the case for a hypothetical ARS delsort list. If putting a debate in a list for the attention of the ARS is canvassing then it does not matter where that list is located or what format it takes. If you want to implement this on its own merits then go ahead, but don't offer it as a solution to the canvassing problem. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]'' 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

*'''Canvassing''' (at least as "defined" by [[User:The Devil's Advocate|TDA]] and not the [[WP:CANVASS|guideline]]) is apparently running rampant across Wikipedia. It can be seen by the discussions on '''other''' project pages (such as examples found [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine |here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music|here]], and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio|here]]) that use of their project pages to promote action on articles (even of some at AFD), is not a problem restricted only to the ARS, as these others also "inundate people" with information often favoring a certain conclusion or suggested outcome. Shall then widen the focus of this RFC to include the broader suggestion that all these other projects' members refrain from offering opinions at AFD unless and until these other project's pages are modified to never provide or request member input on issues? What a nest of vipers TDA has uncovered! </sarcasm>. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 06:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC) this tongue-in-cheek suggestion is made without any serious desire for encyclopedia-wide sanctions to any and all projects that offer information and seek discussion on their talk pages, as alerting their memberships to ongoing issues is what '''ALL''' projects do, and no project can dictate what their members do with the information provided on their pages. '''THAT''' calls for education of individuals.

===Proposal from Hut 8.5===

Line 691 ⟶ 696:

#[[User:The ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]] 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

#Indeed. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

# Weakly support. Although ''The purpose of the Squadron is to get stuff kept at AfD.'' isn't true according to the group's definition; some of its most prominent members have an anti-deletion mindset that doesn't fit in with the norms of Wikipedia, and they use the group to further this ideology. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

====Oppose====

Line 712 ⟶ 717:

:From what I read it seems the contention from Hut is similar to my own, in that the ARS pushes for keeping an article that is listed and the project's pages don't allow that the nomination may actually be right. It is very hard to see how even the mere act of listing something there could be construed as anything but canvassing. Members may not vote the way someone listing a page desires, but that is because most of them aren't androids, I presume, and typically try to vote based on the evidence. All the same, the message still has an influence. If words and imagery alone couldn't persuade people, advertisements would be a lot more boring.

:Someone seeing a neutral notification is more likely to examine the merits of the case objectively, while someone seeing a biased notification will be inclined to voting a certain way. When said people are screened through a page full of biased language and imagery favoring that sort of vote before even getting to the message, the inclination will be even greater. If those Budweiser commercials had people going "Here we go!" then banging their heads against walls in a drunken stupor, vomiting on one of the pin-up gals, passing out on the coach, and waking up the next day with nothing but a foggy memory and a piercing pain in their heads only to find out three weeks later that they got a girl pregnant, viewers would be more inclined to drink Coke.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 04:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with User:Bilby that the proposal (and your very firrst sentence in response to him) is flawed. ARS does not promote that ANY article be automatically kept simply because it is on their list, only that it be improved as rapidly as possible in the face of a ticking clock. Nor do they promote kneejerk "keeps" for problematic articles. And as there are many non-ARS-related AFDs where editors opine keep or delete using poor arguments, it would seem that this lack of understanding is not limited to some few ARS members. That some editors, ARS members and non-ARS members alike, do not (yet) understand the processes of article improvement or AFD discussion is a call for education, not sanctions directed at one project in partcluar simply because they are apparently alone in the current crosshairs. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</~~font~~span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 05:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:(In reply to Bilby) I did not say that "the ARS... believes that all articles need to be saved". I said that that the purpose of the ARS is to get articles kept. I did not say "all" or "every" article. It seems from your comment that you agree with this. One thing that is ''not'' part of the purpose or mission of the ARS is to evaluate whether a deletion nomination placed before it is valid and act accordingly. (Or, to put it another way, ARS members do not ever look at an article on their list, decide the deletion nomination is valid and argue the thing should be deleted. Even if a project member were to do this he or she would not be doing ARS work.) ''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]'' 09:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 781 ⟶ 786:

# [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

#This remains largely unenforceable, but I think it should be "required". You ''should'' be darn embarrassed to put something at AfD when 10 seconds of looking would have shown that the topic is notable. And if it happens a lot, there is (and I think most would agree) a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issue. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

# I would like to see this proposed in the appropriate forum, as I think it's important enough to be "required" in spirit. That it is not 100-percent enforceable is beside the point; many of our policy requirements are not perfectly enforceable. I support DGG's comment ''Why should it be the nom? Basically, because they have gotten there first, and have no business listing it otherwise. Nor does anyone have the ability to !vote in a AfD discussion unless they either do this or know it has been done.'' Also agreeing with Jclemens' comments above, and I would further note that [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] essentially asks that ''someone'' has searched for sources for an article before it can be deleted as "non-notable". [[User:Paul Erik|<~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Comic sans MS;">~~[[User:~~Paul Erik~~|Paul Erik]]~~</~~font~~span>]] <sup~~>[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</~~font>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</~~font~~span>]] 01:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

# I do think a reasonable stab at [[WP:BEFORE]] should be required of anyone nominating an article for deletion. I particularly hate to see articles get AfD'd within literally minutes of their creation, because it means that the nominator almost certainly didn't follow [[WP:BEFORE]]; the lapse of time between creation and nomination was not enough for them to do any research. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Line 789 ⟶ 794:

#:a)All previous attempts to upgrade WP:BEFORE to policy have failed. And rightly so. See [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88#Is_WP:BEFORE_obligatory.3F|this discussion]], and [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_63#Rewrite_of_WP:BEFORE.3B_what_we_really_expect_before_nominating|this one]] for relevant threads.

#:b)This is the wrong venue to be discussing WP:BEFORE. This RfC concerns the Article Rescue Squadron so it's way off topic. This proposal could possibly be interpreted as a cynical attempt to upgrade WP:BEFORE by a sneaky back-door route, though I'm sure that's not actually true. It just looks a bit off.

#:c)The problem I have with WP:BEFORE is how it is used as a club to attack AfD nominators. This is inappropriate behaviour because it shifts the focus from articles to people. It also makes the utterly, utterly false assumption that WP:BEFORE trumps WP:BURDEN. [[User:Reyk|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="~~Maroon~~color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</~~font~~span>]] ~~~~[[User talk:Reyk|'''<~~font~~sub ~~color~~style="~~Blue~~color:blue;">YO!</~~font~~sub>''']]~~~~ 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

#Per Reyk, I'm fed up with people at ARS discussing the nomination or the nominator rather then the article. Its a dishonest way to progress business as it propogates the battleground mentality that is AFD and doesn't noting to improve the content under discussion. Public humiliation/approbation are most certainly poor tools to teach lazy AFD nominators how to do it properly. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]'' 06:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

#I agree with the above that this is a distraction from the purpose of the RfC, and that if implemented it would result in many AfD discussions degenerating into attacks on the nominator rather than discussing the merits of the article in question. The idea has been proposed and rejected many times before. People sometimes leave comments along the lines of "Keep, nominator didn't follow BEFORE because there's a source [http://www.example.com here]", but the fact that particular source hasn't been brought up doesn't mean anything. Possibly the nominator did look for sources but didn't find that one because of slightly different search terms or techniques, not looking in a certain location or because of an honest mistake. Possibly the nominator did find that source but discounted it because they didn't think it was reliable, independent or constituted significant coverage (topics editors disagree about all the time). We could require that nominators give an exhaustive list of everything they did to satisfy BEFORE, but that would be excessive bureaucracy and the AfD process is already quite difficult for editors who haven't seen it before to figure out. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]'' 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

#While I agree that [[WP:BEFORE]] should be satisfied by anyone nominating an article for deletion, to attempt to actually ''require'' it is unenforceable. As Hut describes above, just because someone didn't find any sources doesn't mean they didn't put forth a good faith effort to search for them, and there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Also, I agree with Reyk that this proposal is somewhat off-topic. [[User:Scottywong|—SW—]] [[User talk:Scottywong|communicate]] 15:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

#The responsibility for finding grounds on which to retain content rests with those who believe the content is worth keeping. This applies both as a matter of principle (see [[WP:BURDEN]]) and also as a practical matter: people who believe that a particular article should be deleted are likely to be less motivated to conduct a thorough search; that is something for which those who are of the opposite view are better suited. Separately, as has been noted, AfDs should discuss the merits of the content at issue, rather than those of the nominator. This proposal would, on the opposite, incite AfD participants to make contested AfDs even more confrontative and vitriolic than they already are. [[User:Sandstein|<~~font~~span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</~~font~~span>]] 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

#Dipping WP:BEFORE in gold and demanding fealty before it has long been a pet cause of the ARS, but it is simply not going to happen; IMO this should be about ready to be listed at [[WP:PERENNIAL]]. Blatantly bad faith nominations of a clearly notable subject can be handled in the proper venues, there's no need to raise this to policy to address that. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

#Per Reyk and Tarc. Sorry, DGG, but your persistent campaign to hobble deletion nominators has already been rejected and rightly so. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

#WP:BEFORE is one of those sounds-great-in-theory-works-poorly-in-practice things -- rather akin to many of the complaints about the ARS, in fact! It's bad enough that it's already used as a sneaky way of assuming bad faith without actually coming out and assuming it with respect to AFD nominators. It's also an extremely subjective thing. I've had WP:BEFORE thrown in my face in the past when I have absolutely done a good faith search for sourcing -- only to have someone else look at the same sources I'd dismissed, deem them acceptable, and then [[WP:AGF|assume]] that I hadn't bothered to check for sources before nominating the article. I've seen this done to a number of other people as well. This is usually accompanied by a nails-on-chalkboard snide "all you have to do is click the Google News button up top" comment. Wonderful stuff! WP:BEFORE should only ever exist as advice, not as anything with actual force to it. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

# Per Reyk, Spartaz, and Hut 8.5. Of course you should always check for sources, but until the invention of a mindreading device this will be impossible to police and arguing over the extent of a BEFORE search will only serve as a distraction in AfDs. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:blue;">Them</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:red;">From</~~font~~span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:black;">Space</~~font~~span>]]''' 03:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

====Comments====