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

Article Images

Line 217:

#Clearly serves as a method of canvassing.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#'''[[User:Eagles247|Eagles]]''' '''[[User talk:Eagles247|24/7]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Eagles247|(C)]] 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#I do not support everything in this RFC, but I do believe that the ARS -- or, perhaps more specifically, its Content Rescue List tool -- frequently serves as an ''inadvertent'' vehicle for canvassing. I do not believe this is the intent behind the tool, although I'm not confident that that's a particularly salient point. I also note that the ARS frequently (but not always) self-polices by declining to act on more baldly canvassing-in-nature Rescue requests but, again, I'm not confident that that's a particularly salient point, either. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# 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)

Line 301:

#Yes, the ARS comes from an inclusionist worldview, that improvement is better than deletion whenever possible. There is nothing sinister about this, its a legitimate viewpoint for a group on Wikipedia to promote. Just like [[Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue]] did.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • [[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]][[User talk:Milowent|spoken]] 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#This is clearly true to the point of almost not warranting a mention. I personally think the inclusionist rhetoric should be dialed down to the point that the project is a more plainly welcome one for non-inclusionists such as myself (I am an ARS member, but much of the rhetoric on ARS project pages is not exactly agreeable to me). I'm one of the more-than-a-few who would support renaming the project altogether to get away from this pseudo-heroic "rescue" concept. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 18:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#Unsurprisingly, it is true. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#True, but not a problem. [[User:Kgorman-ucb|Kevin (kgorman-ucb)]] ([[User talk:Kgorman-ucb|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 335:

* In other news flashes, WikiProject Conservatism's page features content that may be deemed Conservative, WikiProject New York's page features content that some might consider New York-centric, etc. Nobody is going out of their way to label Articles from Deletion as "imbued with a biased sense of deletionism," even though that is equally true. Of even more concern is the deletionist bias of Deletion Review — but nobody's starting a war over that, are they? [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::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|Schmidt,]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|MICHAEL Q.]]'' 08:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 520:

#I have some ideas, as do other editors, on how to change the focus of the ARS to make its activities more acceptable and less controversial.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#As someone who has seen at least two AfDs he opened dramatically change course due to the interference from the ARS ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film)|Stacked (TV film)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Newton, Sr.|Cecil Newton, Sr.]]), I support this proposal. '''[[User:Eagles247|Eagles]]''' '''[[User talk:Eagles247|24/7]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Eagles247|(C)]] 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

#: <s>I support this, as I think the status quo is going to keep leading us back to the same place of controversy, but please note my comments in the section below. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 18:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)</s>

#'''Support per the slew of opposes''' I can't even fathom how a group of editors, when faced with the concerns of a larger community, go "I refuse to address your concerns, and don't care for your suggestions". That the refusal to initiate a discussion on how to improve the ARS to alleviate concerns of canvassing is so drastic, despite the concerns of so many, is prima facie evidence that there is something very rotten here... [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]} 02:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

::*Or its prima facie evidence that there's not. But as a member of the Article Deletion Squadron, I guess you disagree and that's your right.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • [[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]][[User talk:Milowent|spoken]] 04:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 546:

Such a discussion could be another RfC or a VPP discussion. In any event I think there needs to be some significant outside input to insure any refocusing actually deals with the concerns often raised about the ARS. Attempts by members to reform usually never take off, or make cosmetic changes that do not diminish the issues with the group. Wider community input would serve to compel the reforms to be implemented.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I support all three points in this RFC but, to be clear, I do not support any draconian solutions such as those proposed in the Desired Outcomes section, at least to the extent that they reach as far as excluding ARS members from participation in deletion discussions. I also note that Diego has started a discussion at the [[Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Time_to_rethink_the_Rescue_List.3F|ARS talk page]] regarding an ARS refocus to address many of these concerns, and some of that thinking may be applicable here. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:The suggestion was the group avoiding involvement, not individual editors and I tried to make this clear above. Basically, if the ARS cannot commit to serious reform it should not be directing people to AfD discussions from its project page. As to Diego's suggestion, it would not really change anything and suggested something that reads a lot like a POV fork of AfD. To repeat what I said there, if he sees a problem with AfD he should get other editors to brainstorm on a fix to AfD itself. I would encourage a change to the AfD process to make discussion more neutral and open-ended i.e. not geared toward an up-or-down vote on inclusion or deletion.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::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)

Line 554:

::::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)

:::::And how about a noticeboard with a perfectly neutral wording and open for all audiences that listed "deletion discussions of unclear status", which is what I actually proposed? (The name "disputed deletion discussions" was just a catchy witticism to generate commentaries, placed in parentheses and with an interrogation sign, so nobody could in good faith think that it was a firm proposal for the noticeboard name). I didn't fear your proposal, I though it would be much more cumbersome and unproductive that it's actually being and utterly dislike your [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_Rescue_Squadron#Desired_outcomes|desired outcomes]] so I proposed a [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages|consensus building]] alternative. The [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposal_from_Michael_Q._Schmidt|Proposal from Michael Q. Schmidt]] is exactly what I was aiming for, but I forgot to [[KISS principle|keep it simple]] and didn't think of the stroke of genius that is using the deletion sort format. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::DA, if a "project page that bombards people with messages favoring inclusion directing people towards a noticeboard called 'disputed deletion discussions'" were what's being proposed, I'd be inclined to agree that that's not a change. That is, however, not what is being proposed. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I am talking about the ARS page itself. Diego's proposal did not involve changes to ARS, but just spinning off the list to "take the heat off" of the ARS. He clearly suggested the ARS would be involved with the proposed noticeboard. Any sort of "disputed deletion discussions" noticeboard would be a problem in itself, but proposing that the ARS retain its POV-orientation while still being involved in the noticeboard is not a solution. It's a shell game.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::And why should I have proposed changes to the ARS in a proposal explicitly designed to be detached from the ARS, mind you? [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 17:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 575:

# [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# Well said. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|Alpha_Quadrant]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|(talk)]] 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# Indeed! [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

# 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)

Line 624:

# 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)

# This may be the only practical and actionable advice I've yet to read in this discussion, and would solve all drama instantly. It would be simpler to implement and get rolling than my more elaborate proposal. Convert the list to the existing accepted standard format. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# This is such a naturally good call that it verges on being obvious. Yes. This. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 14:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# No reason not to, although I doubt it will alleviate any concerns about (imagined) canvassing. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 00:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# 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)

Line 640:

::*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|Schmidt,]]''' ''[[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|Schmidt,]]''' ''[[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 696:

# The editor misunderstands the fundamental purpose of the ARS. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# I think the sentiment is just, but there is a fundamental misconception here. ARS is about sourcing out what can be sourced out and saving what can be saved. Closing administrators '''''are not supposed to count votes, they are supposed to weigh arguments.''''' If all Administrators did their jobs properly, as most of them usually do, all this "canvassing" nonsense would be exposed for what it is — a bogeyman believed to be under the bed that isn't really there. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

#::As TDA rightly points out several times here, canvassing has nothing to do with the result. Whether administrators properly do their job or not is entirely beside the point. [[User:Ginsengbomb|'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|bomb]] 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

# The insinuation here is that it is somehow improper to get encyclopedic articles kept at AfD. I would argue instead that any attempt to delete encyclopedic content--including articles on encyclopedic topics with the potential to meet inclusion criteria through normal editing--is an attempt to damage the encyclopedia. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

# The goal is not to get every article kept. The goal is to get all articles kept that ought to be kept. The people supporting AfD here are not adverse to deleting articles. JClemens is ranked 64th in the number of deletions by all 1400 admins, with over 19,000; I am 88th, with over 16,000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesR/AdminStats#Totals] '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 796:

#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|Them]][[User talk:Themfromspace|From]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|Space]]''' 03:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)