Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 36

Right tea and biscuits and let's have a calm chat
Hi there - I've been watching this page actively for the past few days and I think the above discussion and the past few edits to this page indicate that tempers are flaring and that there is an ongoing dispute. Now, I am not a member of the ARS, so I apologise in advance if my intervention is unwelcome, but perhaps a third-opinion would be useful here? Looking back over the past few months, there seems to be a conflict based on some misunderstandings (as ever) mixed with some genuine concerns. The common thread to many of the discussions is a question: what is the ARS for? And the conflicts arise when there is an apparent difference between what the project page says and what the ARS is doing. The page says, in crude terms, that the project goes and tries to source and cleanup articles that are at AfD in an effort to rescue useful content. I think it would be impossible for any editor to argue that rescuing useful, good content is a bad thing (although we may all vary in our definition of "good" and "useful"). In recent times, the project has expanded with proposals for handling all XfDs, being actively involved as a group in examining policy/guideline alterations that affect arguments at XfD, etc. This is where a lot of conflict lies, because it doesn't coincide with the stated goals of the ARS. I think there is a resolution in two parts:
 * 1) Realisation, acceptance and acknowledgement on both sides that the ARS is a WikiProject working in a sensitive area working in a position mandated by, and for the benefit of, the community at large (just like any WikiProject)
 * 2) A community-wide RfC on the scope of the ARS.  That is an RfC, not a binding poll, so don't worry about votestacking, or anything.  Have an RfC outlining what the ARS should do in addition to its original aim of cleaning up articles that are at AfD.

By having an RfC for a good few weeks and getting a neutral administrator (I can give you some names of very good admins to do this for you) to evaluate the WP:CONSENSUS you get a series of codified aims and a clear scope. And then all the subsequent disputes are moot provided you stick to that scope, because the ARS would have a mandate from the community that you can always point to. It limits the disruption, and you guys can get back to working on the articles that require cleanup rather than having to bicker here. Now, I obviously think that this is a good way forward - what is happening now, where there is an endless tug of war, where the only solutions to the dispute being put forward are topic bans, blocks and the like, is not sustainable. I am willing to help set up an RfC with you if I am wanted (not essential) - make sure it is neutrally worded so there can be no accusations of bias. In turn, both sides may have to accept that the community wants/doesn't want things you don't agree with. But at the end of the day, we all come to Wikipedia to make a good encyclopedia, and we can't do that without resolving disputes like this amicably. Please give it some thought. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, as long as other ARS members agree.  Thanks for the thoughtful, neautral and polite intervention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working on a straw poll, for all members. Ikip (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, Ikip. I can see it on your talk page.  But the ARS deciding what the ARS should do will not end the disputes and the arguments from those outside who have concerns about its scope.  I am also concerned that a poll about the ARS is principally about removing one of its critics, but that is a matter that can be discussed elsewhere.  What I am proposing is a way by which you can stop all of the stuff that has been going on. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't an easier resolution for this be to remove the material that doesn't involve improving articles up for deletion? It seems like keeping it there would involve opening a big can of drama, and it's rather irrelevant to the purpose of this anyway. Rebecca (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an issue of scope, and part of the ongoing dispute. I think that it needs a wider input - if the community agrees with the scope you propose, then noone can claim it is a case of personal bias.  And vice versa, of course Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Me doing that in the first place started all of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * :Honestly, I think who should decided what is or is not in this project should be the members of this project, especially when what ARS is going is no different from any other project.
 * In addition, yesterday a huge number of editors spontaneously appeared on this project who had rarely participated in ARS, and whose edit histories show they are extremely opposed to the goals of this project. Editors like NUKE AND PAVE should not decide the fate and future of this project. This is a bad idea. Ikip (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's an awkward one, I admit. :) A regular WikiProject interacts with a small range of articles, but even they are answerable to the community, and there are often RfCs about their guidelines or specific points.  WikiProjects are owned by the community at large not their members (something they occasionally have to be reminded of! :) ), and indeed I have seen several ARS members remind critics of the "mandate" that the squadron have from the community - with community support of the expansion of scope, there can be no accusations of overextension for what is undoubtedly a very useful project. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To respond to your addition: Yes, which is why you have an RfC closed by a neutral administrator or bureaucrat, rather than a poll that could be stacked by those with no reasonable arguments. I hope you weren't associating me with any of your latter remarks? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "but even they are answerable to the community"
 * This sounds incresingly like this is a carrot and stick offer.
 * Is there any precendence for this? A wikiproject being dictated on what they can and cannot do by editors who are dramatically opposed to their very existence, asking the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy? Ikip (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure carrots and sticks come into it. I should point out that I am *not* suggesting the RfC cover the old scope of the ARS, which was limited to articles at AfD - there don't seem to be any disputes over this, so it isn't an issue, and so the existence of ARS wouldn't be at issue.  And if it is a community-wide RfC, a handful of extreme positions aren't going to matter.  And finally, yes - WikiProjects hold RfCs all the time.  Unless you think that the entire community opposes the ARS (which seems unlikely) then an RfC (as opposed to a poll) should be fine. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I just barely wrote, I can't accept the idea that ARS has to ask the community for the same rights and priveleges that all wikiprojects already enjoy.
 * Those who delete articles are much better organized, ironically because they are involved in wikiprojects which support deletion of some topic. So I have no faith in a fair RFC. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the next step in dispute resolution, and this is a dispute. And it is no more or less than any other group on Wikipedia has to cope with when they want to expand their scope in a sensitive way.  It doesn't bode well for WikiProjects when they don't engage with the community at large over their activities and instead rely on their own membership for the rules.  As a pertinent example,Esperanza springs to mind.  A wide scope project, eliminated because it became too isolated from the rest of Wikipedia.  I think you don't have a lot of faith in the community, and you need to, because collaboration is what has made Wikipedia great Fritzpoll (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No its not. Editor assistance, Third opinion. Neither have been tried. Again, ARS is simply wanting the same rights and priveleges that other wikiprojects enjoy. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And you shall have them! :) Editor assistance is unlikely to be productive in this type of dispute, and you ahve received third opinions to no avail, although admittedly not through a formal process. RfC is the next step - and to have one is not to treat ARS any differently than any other group on Wikipedia, nor is there a stigma associated with requesting external comment. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've linked that essay here three times, which is three more times than I've linked it anywhere. I'm not happy with it yet. If you have a problem with it, feel free to edit it or take it to MFD, but knock off the red herring bullshit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid this argument in this section, please. I know it's frustrating, but if we can settle the content issues, you guys need never feel you have to interact again.  Happy days, eh? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you are embarrassed by it. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The content issues are vastly secondary. The issue is Ikip's disruption of this project, with baiting and personal attacks and filibustering. It's a chicken and egg problem: well, nothing can be done about Ikip until this whole scope issue is resolved. But Ikip is constantly disrupting discussions of the scope, and starting new fights when the old die out. But if I walked away from this, he'd be attacking Fram or Thumperward or even Uncle G, exactly as he did above. This attitude that there is a unified enemy that must be organized against and attacked is toxic.
 * How do you have a civil discussion of contentious topics when even the subject of discussing the contentious topic is met with trolling? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are trying to bait me again AMIB. And please WP:NPA, I would apprecaite you removing "trolling". "Ikip's disruption of this project" please. AMIB we both know the long laundry list of you disruption here. I can't believe you just said that, I am the one disrupting things. Ikip (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but a behavioural problem is best handled elsewhere than a project talk page. I understand the frustrations for both of you, but we've got to get past it. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a behavioral problem that faces the RFC. We have, above, a thread that got the sort of outside input that you're talking about, and it will be disrupted, in exactly the fashion above. This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for.
 * That's why it's a chicken and egg problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "This disruption is going to drive away exactly the sort of input you're looking for", exactly right and one of the reasons i tried to hat this. Ikip can you not see the irony in your comment "You are trying to bait me again"? David D. (Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone chill out. I think the best way to deal with it is to abstract away names, and come up with a phrasing of the question/issue that both sides thinks is fair. Then we present that issue to a group of outside editors, while you both step aside and abstain from participating -- either you or your friends -- at least for the first few days. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by, but ARS is not a WikiProject. I'm OK with most of the rest of the above comments, but ARS is not a WikiProject any more than 3O, MedCab, or AN are. In fact, I'd encourage ARS to jettison all trappings (membership lists, etc.) that are unnecessarily similar to a Wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine too. It doesn't resolve the issues of scope and clearly this is a subject of disagreement as well, which could perhaps also be included in the RfC. Let's not get bogged down in the arguments now - all you need to decide is if you want to organise an RfC yourselves to finally sort these disputes out. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Fritzpoll is right, we need a third-opinion. As neither an inclusionist or a deletionist, I've been trying to provide a third-opinion. (Operative word: trying.) But really, we probably need an independent group of Wikipedians to talk about this whole concept amongst themselves -- at least for a few days. Only after a consensus has emerged, maybe bring out some of the familiar faces on either side (both AMiB and ikip), but not until they've had a chance to think about the issue in abstract. An independent and wide group of Wikipedians need to decide if it's appropriate to recruit a group based on their inclusion philosophy and then begin linking that group to all kinds of deletion or policy discussions. I'm against this kind of campaigning -- whether it's done by inclusionists or deletionists -- because I think it turns Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, complete with home-bases, generals, and ... squadrons. I liked ARS better when it was concerned with improving articles, even if it wasn't perfect. I shudder to think what would happen if people disagree with that principle, and someone ultimately organizes an equally partisan group at WP:SCISSORS, with permission to link to the AFD discussions they want to. If that were to happen, I could only hope that administrators would disregard the !votes of both camps. But that's my opinion, and we have to go with what the consensus thinks is good practice. So let's figure out a venue to have this discussion, where it won't be contaminated by the usual voices for at least for a few days. Randomran (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What we need is to stop all of these kinds of discussions that always descend into accusatory terrain and get back to improving articles. That is what I tried to do with the two threads above.  I cannot understand why so much time on Wikipedia is used on RfCs and the like rather than on article building.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree with you more, A Nobody. But that's kind of why we need to get a resolution to the dispute - so that everyone can get back to doing what's important.  A short-term loss of time in an RfC will be a medium-term gain in articles being improved Fritzpoll (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to personally see an RfC on anything that really accomplished anything other than just raise tensions further. The ones on editors (no need to name names, most here no who I mean) of both inclusionist and deletionist leanings hardly had any meat in the end.  Ones on say Plot#Not just showed that the community is totally divided.  I think a sign of who is here to improve articles would be seeing who all takes a stand against these threads that seem to go nowhere and do indeed answer my appeals above to divert energy back to article improvement, as say User:Dream Focus and I have been doing at this article under discussion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, we have to resolve disputes somehow, and whilst I agree that RFC/U is a little bit of a time-waster, I have seen RfCs in this domain work quite well provided people can remain reasonably civil - and if we actually get someone to determine the outcome of the discussion, which a lot of failed RfCs do not do. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an independent discussion would be helpful. Something without the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is nearly impossible to accomplish here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly what me and Fritz are saying. At this point, it's time to work together to frame the issue, and then put it to independent parties, while we sit and watch for a while. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone from either "side" (I hate using such words) would never go along with that, though. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate that word too, but there are definitely sides here, and both parties are proud of their side. If we can't frame the issue in a way that both sides agree with, maybe we can identify the issues they agree upon, and let them both present their arguments where they disagree... then leave it to an independent group to look over and assess. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or better yet, we doing something proactive. Why not divide up the articles currently rescue templated and see how many we can successfully improve?  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen until we deal with the issue of when it's appropriate to link to talk pages. Otherwise, we're going to keep getting the links, and we're going to keep getting the pushes into a discussion page, and we're going to keep getting the push-backs. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If AfDs are truly closed based on strength of arguments and not by number of participants, then it really wouldn't matter how many editors of a likely bias comment in the AfD. And as far as what we have here, it should be a common courtesy to ask for input from those who have actually been working on the articles under discussion, just as we typically (or should) notify relevant wikiprojects.  It should not be about "winning" arguments or feeling somehow personally slighted if an article someone nominated ultimately gets kept.  We should want or hope more than anything that when we nominate an article for deletion someone proves us wrong and actually improves it.  That is what is best for our project, not scoring AfD wins or anything else, and getting input from article builders and those knowledgeable about the topic under discussion is worthwhile to reaching that end.  Napoleon said, "There are people who really believe in their talent to govern simply because they are governing."  That can be Wikified in many ways.  Just commenting in AfDs doesn't necessarily translate into having some kind of super knowledge or expertise that somehow trumps others' insights.  Just because someone has been editing for a time doesn't automatically mean they know better than the rest of us and what's good for the rest of us.  I would much rather hear the viewpoints of those who are willing to look for sources and improves the articles under discussion than from those who are not willing and in some cases don't want to to the point of wanting the article deleted under any circumstance, because it's a "type" of article.  Here, once again, we are making an issue of a non-issue and filling up all sorts of talk page space with words that cannot once again make me think imagine if all of this text (from sadly now myself included) were used referencing articles instead.  One of the biggest let downs of Wikipedia is how much time all of us (as I am commenting here, I am guilty too), spend arguing over trivialities rather than building articles.  We make waaaay more out of things than we should, because again, the end result is we get new insights from people in discussions rather than the same olds.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue is based on a legitimate disagreement as to how we obtain new insights for important discussions. Is it helpful, disruptive, or merely tolerable if someone organizes a WP-space based on inclusion philosophy, and then uses that WP-space to link to discussions? I'm sure there are deletionists and inclusionists where this is a matter of pride and "victory", so that's why it's important to ask the question as a matter of behavior -- using the rule equally across the inclusion spectrum. This issue is not going to just go away by asking people to focus on articles, because the issue is fundamentally linked to whether we organize the WP-space based on improving articles or we organize the WP-space based on exerting ideological influence upon talk page discussions. I don't think we're going to make much more progress here, because you've already made up your mind about the issue (although it appeared you leaned the other way), as have I. So to get closure, we need to put it to an independent group who can say "you're right AMiB, this is a problem" or "you're right ikip, anyone should be able to do this because it's helpful". That's not going to happen here. But outside editors are coming here to try and help out, and get it away from inclusionism/deletionism, so we can close this discussion in a non-ideological way. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We need not make a hash out of every single perceived issue on Wikipedia. We don't need a committee to iron every last thing out.  Making an issue out of everything does more harm than not, i.e. it raises more tensions, makes editors bitter, and doesn't really improve any articles.  We should reserve this much text for the really serious issues.  Believe me, there's lots of stuff that I think flat out wrong and bothersome regarding deletions, but life is too short to get riled up over everything I am not happy about.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that will cut across every talk page discussion that ARS links to. Unfortunately, this issue is exactly about how much text we should spend on really serious issues, and who that text should come from. Personally, I'd love to find a way to reduce the amount of text, by making that text less partisan. Randomran (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best thing anyone can do is to lead by example. Rescue some articles, show people how "it's done" as it were, and then encourage them to help in these efforts.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leadership by example hasn't been working, unfortunately. Maybe we should drastically scale back the number of talk page discussions that we link to? Randomran (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who was part of WP:ARS back when it was first started, I'll agree with Fritzpoll & Randomran in their statements. This WikiProject has drifted away from its original intent -- to save articles on notable subjects by improving them. (Perhaps the best example would be Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture -- Carcharoth took an article that was facing deletion because it appeared to be a crufty list of random stuff & made it into a wonderful article.) The reasoning was that if you knew a subject was notable, then you knew enough to rewrite the article so it was a clear keep. The purpose was not to organize inclusionists to vote to keep articles, not to provide one more battlefield for partisans, not to create an in-group like Esperanza reportedly became. You don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to further its goals -- but it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work. And if individuals try to twist the goals of this WikiProject to something else, then IMHO they are being disruptive, & should be treated accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are diverse opinions from ARS members. The "deletionist element" (I hate such labels) are seen by some as disruptive in their actions, just as some perceive the "inclusionist side" as sometimes being disruptive. That brush paints both ways. So restricting what a member can or cannot do "as a member" might simply force folks to leave the ARS as membership being pointless... leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those few who remain and encouraging a perhaps geater "battlefield". Or is the reduction of ARS volunteer membership an unpoken goal? You correctly point out that "it is nice to have somewhere that lists articles up for deletion that someone thinks simply needs work, & someplace to talk with others engaged in the same work". I personally find the community at ARS {both the inclusionary and exclusionary elements), and the limited tools we have, to be of great value to work on improving the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "All are welcome" - says so right at the top of the page, so of course opinions will be diverse, and it would be good to remember that rather than get dragged into discussions of who is somehow "entitled" to be a member, who is a "leader" of the project etc.- all that smacks of ownership.  pablo hablo. 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of membership or not is not problematic - all WikiProjects maintain lists of members who are interested editors. I don't think there is any question either that the concept of ARS in the rescuing of articles up for deletion is not a very good one, and I would never suggest putting that up for debate at an RfC, since it is the founding purpose of the project.  All the disputes here have a root in a perceived expansion in that role, as I mention (and so won't bore you by repeating) in my opening comments.  My receiving a wider mandate from the community with a fresh perspective over whether ARS' remit extends, for example to all XfDs, the issues (and therefore the damaging and time-consuming arguments) are rendered moot and the work of the project can focus on article rescue, and whatever other areas ARS finds it has mandate to work in.  A community-wide RfC is helpful because, as Schmidt suggests, such labels as inclusionist and deletionist are only applicable to a tiny minority of editors - most editors are some shade of grey.  WikiProjects are for the benefit of Wikipedia - a collaborative effort of many editors of many viewpoints - asking the community for feedback on some of these issues is an obvious step to allowing ARS to get on with its job.  Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No argument here, the more feedback the better. pablo hablo. 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent - it seems there is a it of positive feedback in regards to my proposal. I will see how this plays out over the next 24 hours and then we can gather together the issues regarding the ARS that need resolving for the RfC.  Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fritzpoll, I have changed my mind. If you feel like an rfc is the best thing, lets do an RFC. I have struck all of my disagreements. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you say that, Ikip - I'm not sure how well this would work if you weren't on board Fritzpoll (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it would go on without me, regardless, so I might as well catch the train, it beats getting ran over by it. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And now discussions can begin on just who gets notified and how. Carefully. If the notification results in specific attentions of avowed "deletionists" or "inclusionists", one "side" or the other will cry foul. Certainly a notice at the villiage pimp might suffice, but I was aboard and working on articles months before I ever knew it existed, and fell it would not bring the input from a large enough section of the community. One way, might be to use the last (arbitrary number XXX) AfD articles tagged for rescue by ARS, whether kept or deleted or merged or redirected, and send a bot notice to every particpant of such AFDs... which would then fairly and neutrally include every editor from either side of the fence who particpated in such discussions either pro or con. "Inclusionists" cannot claim undue advantage to "deletionists" nor vice-versa. It is how those (arbitrary number XXX) of articles were improved or not which becomes the basis of the discussion and ARS's part... not who did it or not or what their motives were. Improving articles for the improvement of wiki is the bottom line.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comemnt. I appreciate the potential for more clarity. In addition, the point that our project page needs to be updated per recent discussions also makes sense. We just had an RfC and that confirmed that TfD, and arguably other XfD items were fine for ARS. In addition some more experience folks in ARS and AfD/DrV issues seem to be aligned that at least some uses of rescue tag on DrVs are also acceptable. ARS is a Wikiproject concerned directly with AfD and as such various discussion on perceived problems and solutions of XfD have always happened. As is evident by even this last week's participation there are diverging opinions on if ARS is enabling canvassing in practice or spirit. Depending on one's views and interpretation of what it means to enable and canvass may set your decsion one way or another on if ARS does do this. As such I feel scope RfC would be a somewhat fruitless use of energy as our scope actually hasn't changed as much as been specifically clarified that rescuable content can be found across the encyclopedia. Stepping a bit into theory here, our good and best articles combine ideas as words, templates, images, categories etc to convey information. ARS is here to help find ways of rescuing content that benefits our articles and thus our readers. Scope is not been the core concern although that is a byproduct of contention which has been somewhat resolved. I have little doubt that RfC would support using ARS on most of not all XfD with the main concern of how do we make it work while mitigating problems. Thus our project page should be updated and clarified a bit, something I was hoping to do but have been largely derailed by the rather full discussion here instead. Talking is good but so is doing. IMHO, the issues to be worked out - on a project level first - is how to address the perceptions of ARS talkpage posts used to canvass and reactions to those perceptions as well as similar perceptions of the results as seen on AfDs. Regardless if they technically are or are not canvassing there really shouldn't be a need to battle over talkpage posts as much as approach them civilly. Seperately, but perhaps intertwined based on one's perspective, is the percieved canvassing on XfD discussions themselves. That is does the rescue tag cause canvassing or what? The answer IMHO is that it doesn't but there are always folks who will !vote poorly (both for or against) so addressing those editors would sem to make sense. As such ARS can have a proactive stance and look to doing a coopertaive AfD survey of recently-closed AfDs. Creating a list of all editors with "empty" !votes and contacting them to point out the waste of their energy and encourage them to more fully express their position. Personally I have a proposal for each of these areas and I think it would expeditiously help rather than what looks to more (another) lengthy discussions about perceived motives. If we can find common ground on how to civilly approach these issues I think that would make sense so all those interested in working on articles again can do so.  -- Banj e  b oi   03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael, I think we need to focus on what we should be asking, before we focus on how to ask. Actually, now that I think about it, your suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS.
 * Benjiboi, I have been thinking about it long and hard, and I am actually open to not posting DRVs and TFDs, simply refering these posters to sister projects, if those sister projects encourage the saving of articles, not to deletion. I don't know. I am up in the air about all of this. But if you feel it is settled, then it is settled.
 * It would suggest we all start to use the word "notification" instead of canvassing, which has a negative connotation.
 * I think a good basis to start from is our sister projects, what does and does not work for them, how do they approach notification?
 * Instead of maybe focusing on subject wikiprojects, maybe see what works on wikiprojects like, WikiProject Notability, which revolve around a template too,, their first sentence states:
 * "The Notability Project is a WikiProject based on Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability."
 * or
 * WikiProject Spam
 * they have Ikip (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The above is all tl;dr, with plenty of name-calling and whatnot. Personally, I think if the following happened, the bickering would stop:
 * 1) The ARS diligently self-polices this talk page and removes any sort of attempts to direct attention to a policy or guideline discussion relating to notability (or really, any policy or guideline not germane to the functioning of the project). WP:VPP, WP:CENT, and WP:VPR exist for a reason. If people here are so worried about missing essential policy discusisons, they can watchlist the aforementioned pages. There should be no need to place any messages whatsoever here, as it's irrelevant to this project and as shown, has only served to inflame conflict.
 * 2) ARS members who actively improve articles at deletion recuse themselves from actually !voting and instead note on the AfD itself that they have made improvements to the article. It decreases the possibility of any possible partisan conflict to zero and indicates that any possible improvement is made in good faith with no attempt to escalate any sort of conflict. A Nobody already does this (or has; his behavior changes so rapidly I don't keep track), so it shouldn't be difficult for people here to follow that. They are free to inform people on their talk pages to revisit their !votes to see whether their improvements are sufficient and continue to work on the article if they are not.
 * 3) The ARS conducts fairly regular (say quarterly) sweeps through its members and removes inactive ones who haven't done any article rescuing. Uncle G's points above are salient: if you aren't actually doing any article rescuing, you shouldn't really be associated with this project. The premise of the project is someone no one—inclusionists and deletionists alike—will disagree with. There are quite a few people here because the ARS has been effectively turned into a political tool for inclusionists, which as the founding members of the ARS have adequately put it, was not the original intention of the project by any stretch of the imagination. Other WikiProjects do this ocassionally with their members by asking people to resign as members to show that they still have an interest in the project. I don't see why this should be any different. Project members already give out barnstars actively for rescuing articles, so motivation shouldn't be a problem here.
 * 4) The ARS appoints a corps of coordinators to ensure that this is all enforced and that it stays on task with its intended goal: improving articles. See WP:FILMC and WP:MHC for examples. There's already plenty of maintenance work within the project, so this isn't a hard job to undertake. I'd recommend that people widely considered open-minded and accessible by both "sides" of the inclusion spectrum take the job. They should be readily apparent at this point.
 * If no one can agree to anything concrete here, then I'd agree with Fritzpoll that an RfC is necessary, and if nothing comes of that, then ArbCom may be appropriate to stop the behavior issues coming out of the rampant canvassing that has been seen here. It's greatly disturbing to see that so many of the original members of the ARS find the direction the ARS is taking to be grossly wrong, and if the current members don't interpret that as a sign that something is amiss, then we're going to ultimately end up at ArbCom as I previously noted. I pray it doesn't come to that. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive. It's really not very hard - find somewhere else to put the policy stuff, and leave this page for its original purpose - rescuing articles from deletion by improving them. Attempting to make this particular page into a general inclusionist thing is stirring up drama for no good reason - when it could just be put somewhere else. Rebecca (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh, another proposal to neuter ARS from an editor whose edit history is completely opposed to the ideals of ARS. At least you didn't say you have the best interest of ARS in mind like others have.
 * Sephiroth BCR, you are a member of, contributed to (or been mentioned in) 69 wikiprojects, of those 69 wikiprojects, how many have had outsiders come in and demand such draconian solutions?
 * I agree with Rebecca, that "This suggestion is bureaucracy, and it's pointless and counterproductive"
 * Lets be fair here folks.
 * If everyone is so worried about policy discussions, canvassing, etc in wikiprojects, lets move this discussion to Wikiprojects and we can have a RFC there, to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things. 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a silly suggestion, for sure, but it's not being helped by the fact that certain people associated with this project are going for the dramaful option instead of the easier one. Look, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist. On matters of policy, I probably agree with these people. But the drama-free way of dealing with this is to let this focus on improving articles to save them from deletion, and to ship the policy and canvassing stuff either to a) someone's user subpage, or b) some other WikiProject - which has the advantage of not enveloping something which is actually working quite well in megadrama. If that material disappears elsewhere, then so does the drama. Rebecca (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not throw out Sephiroth's suggestions so quickly. They are not bureaucratic but instead a way to separate the goals of rescuing articles from the non-goal of directly influencing XFD !voting, though I 'd argue the 3rd suggestion, about purging non-rescuing members, to be the only questionable addition.  The fourth about project coordinators is something that many WP have taken up so that's completely fair to ask for.  The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give this project the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an inclusionist cabal.  They are not bureaucratic but instead simply reflect basic existing principles on WP (notably WP:COI). --M ASEM  (t) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, what do you think of the idea of having an RfC at Wikiprojects to decide whether all wikiprojects should do all of these things?
 * I think that WikiProject Video games, a project which you are a member of, and which actively discusses deletions and policy, should have these same rules too, what do you think?
 * And no, its not because of the alleged disruption of this project that we are different from WikiProject Video games. What rules have we broken?
 * I love this entry:


 * (←) Might I suggest we set out a project purge, basically going to all WikiProjects that deal with video games but outside of video games, and drop a message in the main project talk page that unless there is a "wait, hold it!", the project will be reverted to a Task Force of WP:VG? Obviously, the larger active onces will reply, but others will probably just be adsorbed. --MASEM 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Masem wants to create a "project purge" of video games, and yet he is here telling ARS how we should function, am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?
 * Masem, I think WP:VG should adapt the first two recommendations because:
 * "The first two are most important and absolutely necessary to give [project video games] the appropriate reputation to simply not make it feel like an deletionist cabal."
 * Ikip (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I do not see a contradiction here. I see it as a consolidation. No information would be lost, as far as I can see. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The suggestion (which was ultimately done) to move VG related WP into the WP:VG was a matter of helping to remove the extraneous weight of those smaller projects and to help them to come under the usual conformity of WP:VG. The only thing that would be deleted, if anything, were the pages in Wikipedia: space related to that project that would be unnecessary as a Task Force. That's nothing like what you are suggesting or the matter at hand of main space articles.
 * And when AFD notices usually go up on the talk page at WT:VG, they either are neutral, or are meant to help get more project insight on an AFD that is going the opposite direction that the project would have - whether this is keep or delete (eg just as if a large number of editors are clamoring to keep a barely notable flash game and thus the WP:VG are brought in to help assert what is necessary, there are requests to help prevent topics from being deleted). There is no implicit project bias to keep or remove topics. Unfortunately, there is an implicit bias by this project to keep articles - that itself is not bad nor should be removed, but it has to be kept in mind in all actions that members of this project take.  That means advertising for non-rescue help for AFDs on this page is not appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I expected Ikip's refusal to even address the substance of my points and merely attack me, and would be interested to see what the other ARS members have to say. These aren't difficult requests. The ARS retains its core values and can safely remove any partisan influences from it should it implement my suggestions. Dismissing it as mere "bureaucracy" is rather vacuous also. Other projects have coordinators to manage large numbers of task forces, discussions, and other material (I should know, I'm a coordinator for WP:FILM), and arguing that this is "bureaucracy" implies that this is being created for no other purpose than to have a process, which is blatantly false. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree about coordinators being needed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions that need answering
Ok, there seems to e a rough consensus for an RfC. To answer Schmidt's question above, I would suggest a posting to WP:VPP and WP:CENT, which would not canvass any side specifically - I'm open to other suggestionsm but for the sake of propriety, I would be wary of any individual talk page postings. Hopefully there can be some agreement on that before the RfC opens. So, what questions need answering? I suggest that if there is a question that needs answering, we start a new subsection below and discuss how to present the wording of the pro and con argument for the community to consider. I have a few ideas, but I'll just set up a sample or two below to get the ball rolling - what I write isn't set in stone, it is a distilation of the sides as I see it, and further discussion can add, remove or refine. Add subsections, go wild, but stay civil. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1: ARS should participate in non-article XfD discussions like other wikiprojects.
I think this is acceptably summarised, but I must admit the possibility of fault. I suggest discussion of this in terms of whether this is an acceptable way to present the question, rather than spending further time debating the validity of the opposing positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say I'm really opposed to this concept at this time. This project as a whole has been maligned now for weeks and we just finished an RfC stating that indeed Xfd was likley within scope and certainly TfDs were. Seperately a group of editors familiar with the issues came to a rough consensus that DrVs could also be acceptable. In the midst of some rather contentious and disruptive activities to this project I find the rather uninspiring prospect of rehashing conversation already meted out troubling. You may not accept this but any such RfC will quickly devolve into the "as long as they don't canvass" refrain which is the real issue to be addressed. And lo, we are. If you must do a system-wide RfC then one on Are posts to Wikiprojects still suppose to be NPOV? would be more apropo or Should we look to enforcing quality participation at XfD? Scope is really not the problem or source of contention here. -- Banj e  b oi   01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ben. Notifying other editors is the central issue here. DRVs have already been discussed, and we agreed that DRVs are okay. Again, I think a wikiprojects RfC on this issue is the best route. Ikip (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine - it was just a sample :) I'll chuck some other in below, with pros and cons to be editedFritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fritzpoll, In all three suggestions you posit you use absolute words.
 * Proposal one: "all"
 * Proposal two: "any"
 * And most troubling of all, proposal three: "unlimited" with the words "any" "perfect" in the text.
 * I fear you are wording questions the average wikipedian will of course object too.
 * Instead of using absolute terms, I suggest comparing ARS to comparable wikiprojects. Ikip (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine - it's the feedback we need: I'm not infallible when it comes to the wording. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even with the recent changes this one, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- Banj e  b oi   03:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends - it remains disputed as to what extent ARS is a WikiProject, doesn't it? And if it isn't, then this question is more relevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a resolved issue? The last RFC wrapped up with the conclusion that it's an appropriate use of the tag if the non-article could be fixed up to resolve the deletion argument, and inapprpriate otherwise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you felt it was an issue? Obviously ARS doesn't think it's an issue. But if no one thinks it's an issue, then we should drop it. Randomran (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still skeptical that there are a significant number of non-AFDs that meet this description. The consensus (which I've since found pretty convincing) is that if the number is non-zero, then it's worth tagging, and if the number is zero, who cares? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear then. Does your skepticism mean you think it's a problem, or mean you don't care? Obviously, ikip and Benjiboi don't think it's an issue. If everyone agrees it's not an issue, it will be easier to move on. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming that everyone respects the consensus of that RFC, then I don't foresee any problems. I'd be a lot more reassured if Banj's response to the RFC wasn't blithe "Well, looks like nobody saw any problem with this." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ... still confused. I take it by "unhatting" this issue, you still think it might be a bad idea for ARS to participate in non-article XfDs? Randomran (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can clarify why ARS would even want to (Other than for the obvious ones such as rescue)? David D. (Talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of vague on that myself. To my mind, Banje's argument was that ARS would be a good source of input on contentious TFD discussions, which sounded to me a bit too much like "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly" from the RCH DRV mess. The argument that carried the day was that there was non-article encyclopedia content that may end up for deletion because it is malformed, not because it is ill-conceived. I find that it's very rare that non-AFD deletion discussions bring up issues that can be fixed with editing (as opposed to conceptual or implementation issues), but I'm willing to concede that should a fixable template/image/whatever be up for deletion, then rescue is appropriate for it. Rehashing that discussion is almost certain to end up with the same consensus; if there's a fixable non-article, then rescue is appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually my mention of rescue was an example of a template that they might be interested in rescuing from deletion (would they tag it with rescue :) ). In other words, I can only see an interest with respect to templates they actually use. The scope of the ARS was always conceived as rescuing content, as far as I can tell. I fully endorse that goal but don't see a need for it outside AfD. Why would ARS be interested in organizational/cataloging tools. Besides most of those deletion discussion are focused around usability and usefulness, not content notability and sourcing. Two very different beasts. David D. (Talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than tagging ARS/Tagged and whatnot (which I see as kind of dumb but mostly harmless), I think we agree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is dumb - never mind - but the point is, as a group, of course ARS should participate in relevant TfD discussions. It's just that is is hard to think of many that would be relevant. David D. (Talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AMIB, I never suggested that no one saw any problems, what I have always stated on any issue of conflict is that a reasonable discussion with constructive suggestions is helpful. Generally everything else is not. This is a pointy thread and RfC 2.0 as the last thread made clear TfDs and perhaps other XfDs wer fine for ARS' attention. That RfC only happenned because of your insistance to deleting any mention of a TfD, neutral or otherwise. To me this feels like a project verson of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, ergo making the entire project sit through various diatribes on how bad, off, or other allegations ARS is. You have had some valid concerns but they are simply wasted when presented in this way. Extrapolating specific user conduct concerns to an entire Wikiproject is completely unacceptable. -- Banj e  b oi   00:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT is almost always an indication that the person linking them does not understand the argument he or she is responding to. I insisted on removing rescue because your stated purpose was to bring people from ARS to the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Obviously ARS doesn't think it's an issue. But if no one thinks it's an issue, then we should drop it." I agree. Ikip (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reclose Proposal 1
This proposal although perhaps well-intended is only rehashing previous discussions. The recenetly closed RfC - affirmed by univolved admins because even the close was argued about - affirmmed that non-article XfDs were acceptable, ergo this proposal is malformed and will be IMHO a waste of community energy. The core issue was non-neutral posts to this page seen as canvassing and the fallout to the reactions to those posts and that where any energy should be vectored.
 * Support. as nom. -- Banj e  b oi   00:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support lets also !vote on the color of the templates Ikip (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and close it: AMiB says "if there's a fixable non-article, then rescue is appropriate". I think most people on both sides agree on this issue. I hope this shows that it's possible to disagree without it being based in bad faith, incivility, or accusations. Randomran (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Article Rescue Squadron may be notified of XfD discussions
May need some expansion/cleaning up, but this seems to summarise the different positions. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both pro and con are expressed very succinctly; together they express the tug of war that's going on around here. I'm commenting to get the conversation rolling.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thing that might need more evidence. It used to be that ARS was not dominantly inclusionist, but rather focused on editors who tried in good faith to bring articles in line with current policies and guidelines. But the recent recruitment drive has changed ARS. I can find diffs to help substantiate that, if need be. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see the difs. I came here during Ikip's notorious "canvassing campaign" when I had an "Inclusionist" userbox on my Userpage (which has since been replaced with an ARS userbox).  If you look at the membership list, however, most of the people who joined ARS did so before being invited by Ikip.  I think the Inclusionist/!vote stacking arguements are more pointy than factual.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The con section reads like an accusation, rather than a statement of fact. It's an accurate mirror of an accusation levelled at ARS, but that doesn't mean the point has been proven or is a given. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I felt that was problematic - perhaps something a little less absolute: "It has been suggested that...."? Edit freely. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well meaning perhaps but this is just another, IMHO, abuse of community energy. The core question is can a Wikiproject be notified of policy and XfD discussion that may impact their work - the answer is "of course". We are seeking non-answers to non-problems. The real issue was with percieved canvassing, the reactions to that percieved canvassing and the implosion of age-old battles having rather little to do with ARS as a whole. If the notification messages are limited and NPOV then there is really no issue as long as no one over-reacts in any direction. I'm active in the LGBT project, regualrly posts are made concerning XfDs, RfDs and other bits of interests. We have thousnads of articles across concievable every genre and we regularly work with other specilist wikiprojects to effect the right decisions to benefit our readers. Do we agree with every policy? Hardly. But we do discuss them and how seriously to get involved and how we can assist on an issue. If posts to ARS are NPOV the issues, IMHO, would melt away. -- Banj e  b oi   00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't personally think this is that much of an issue either, because people have always contacted ARS about XFDs, and most editors are usually pretty careful to distinguish actual rescue efforts from the occasional empty vote. But for the sake of closure, I think it's fair to present something like this to an independent group, so that we can get an answer and move on. Randomran (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stated before that neutral notifications of discussions that fall within thz scope of the ARS are no problem. The problems I have are with non-neutral messages, or messages that are outside the scope (like policy discussions). Obviously, the most neutral message one can deliver at the ARS, and all that should be needed, is adding the rescue tag, which automatically adds the discussion to this talk page, the main page, the notification template many members have on their user page, and a category. But a section like "X is up for deletion. Is it worth putting the "rescue" tag on it?" is of course no problem either. Fram (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as the first proposal. Policy discussions that impact a project certainly are appropriate, its quite foolish to think any project would simply lockstep march along oblivious to decisions which all editors are encouraged to take part in. Even with the recent changes this one, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But why would the opinion of the ARS be so relevant to warrant special notification of a discussion on WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, or merge discussions on a number of articles? What reason is there to single out this project for an invitation to participate in such debates? They have no special authority, are not specialized in these subjects, ... Individual editors are of course welcome to participate, and are aware of these discussions by the same means as any other eitor: but the project, as a project, should just enact the conclusions, not try to influence them. If a group of articles no longer is rescueable becaues of a policy change, so be it. If a group suddenly becomes rescueable because of a policy change, so be it. People here should know that such a change has occurred. But why should the ARS be invited as a group to join the discussion? Anyway, your comment and my reply belong with proposal #4, not with #2. Fram (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused, special notification? How is some editor posting on here, "hey there is a discussion currently about FICT" which a group maybe interested in, "special"? Is this any more "special" than the other wikiprojects which do the same thing? Ikip (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other wikiprojects don't explicitly exclude policy from their scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Special notification" is an editor singling out the ARS to come and join a policy discussion because apparently said editor suspects (correctly or incorrectly) that the ARS will support his more inclusionist-leaning opinion. There is no reason why the ARS should be notified of such a discussion. If a policy or guideline discussion is neutrally posted to all projects, then it is no "special notification". And if you or anyone wants an example, see the start of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 28. As has been said before: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is more relevant for issue #4, but there are reasons ARS probably shouldn't get into policy-making. As noted above, ARS specifically states on its front page that it rescues articles through improvement, not policy or voting. This was meant to re-assure people who were worried that ARS would be tempted to take the easy way to save articles by lowering quality standards, rather than improving article quality. But IMO, a lot of it has to do with the recent recruitment drive, which isn't necessarily an act of bad faith, nor a problem in of itself. It just raises real concerns of what kind of discussion we're going to have when 300 people who share a common viewpoint are recruited to a project space and then linked to another talk page. Randomran (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. No, we don't exclude policy from our scope. The relevant sentence - The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. - was explicitly added due to rather vociferous allegations that this counters. Indeed ARS is not about casting !votes to keep or creating policies just so nothing gets deleted. To suggest this statement hereby excuses ARS from voting or engaging in policy discussions is simply wrong. Again, just like any other project, we will be involved in discussions that effect the work. The issue remains not n notification but in keeping those notes neutral. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. As for the recruitement drive ... I'm a quite active member of the LGBT project. If we sent a neutral invite to everyone who has a "pro"-LGBT userbox - for example "I support equal rights" or "I support same-sex marriage" - and avoided inviting those who have a userbox like "I oppose same-sex marriage", would this argument still hold up? I doubt that it would, IMHO, it woud be ideal if the newbies had more resources/training on how to conduct themselves but alas, we also cannot make them do anything. We all started somewhere but if there is a willingness to positively contribute I see ARS as helping those "recruited" "inclusionists" put their money where their mouth is. If they can hopefully learn not all tagged articles are worth rescuing and sometimes merge is a better solution - at least for now - then we all win. I don't expect this to happen overnight though either. This issue remains on the user-level so the AfD survey and a friendly template message ala why empty !votes suck may be a good resource -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think your comparison is helpful for the current issue. The problem is that people shouldn't be recruited to a project space based on their view on content, and then subsequently linked to discussions about content policy. I might agree with you that people shouldn't be recruited to a project space based on their view of gay marriage, and then linked to discussions about Wikipedia's policy on gay marriage. But Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on gay marriage, or any human right, and these questions are completely outside the scope of Wikipedia. The worst thing that a group of equal rights fanatics could do is work on an article about equal rights, and we have policies like WP:NPOV to prevent them from exerting undue influence. Tell me, what prevents a roster that's been assembled based entirely on their view of content -- deletionist or inclusionist or anti-trivia or pro-spoiler -- from exerting undue influence on content policy? Even at AFDs, such a content-specific roster would have trouble abusing blind !votes, because the closing admin could ignore arguments that under/overstate the article's quality. But there's no such check on that content-specific roster at a content policy discussion. The only thing I can think of is if such rosters were to be restrained from content policy discussions, but I'm open to other ideas. Randomran (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if we were to presume an "inclusionist"-heavy roster here - which I'm not sure I agree with as, again, this is a group that varies and participates in wildly different levels - there remains the second assertion resting upon the first that a notice here will suddenly sway the balance of discussion as to greatly influence policy. I remain unconvinced and my main point is that i see no future in the prospect of banning wikiprojects from being notified of XfD discussions. We don't keep or delete something because there was a lot of !votes one way or another. We keep or deleted based on policies and if that is falling afoul it needs to be addressed at AfD and with closers who are making bad closes. And we do have a check on all discussions - consensus. A similar discussion at the Wikicouncil was along the lines of which projects (as noted on a specific article talkpage) did more work on an article ergo had more ownership. As I poited out then many (most?) editors are in more than one project so is it really helpful to determine which project I'm editing on behalf of? The goal is improving the encyclopedia. Many editors simply don't sign up for any project and simply edit away. Again the only net difference is that some ARS members may participate and bring in their relevant experiences. In general it is far more preferable on any discussin to have more opinions expressed so the best decisions are more likely to be made. And statically speaking this bears fruit. Crowds, even with mixed levels of expertise generally make better decisions than a lone person. This proposal should likely also be closed because the community simply will never support that projects can't be notified of these discussions. The issue remains conduct of a limited few in response to what they saw as non-neutral postings of a few others. We are belabouring points that aren't going to go anywhere. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd be ready to drop this issue, just because I see an AFD closing admin as intelligent enough to dismiss the "strong keep: i don't see what people are complaining about" types of !votes in the absence of real article improvement. But I still think this is an issue we need closure on, and can't be closed unilaterally. Some of the other editors really disagree with you (and me) in good faith, and it's possible that independent people in the community will see the need to treat ARS as unique, since it truly is a unlike anything else in the project space. Randomran (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We really aren't given any special anything. If any Wikiproject violates community policies then they will be called on it. This is not about ARS recruiting - we never did, that was one editor who acted on their own. This remains not about what ARS does/did but about specific editors posts and the over-reaction to those posts - also a user issues and arguably a civility issue. And I agree, if a XfD closer can't interpret !votes then that's an issue on those closers. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rather pointy to load a proposal allegedly concerned about battleground issues with inflamaotry laguage and POV. At least keep it neutral. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little pointy to simultaneously modify the arguments on both sides, and then claim the issue should be closed as a non-issue. Although WP:NPOV only applies to articles, this is a situation where the principle is still good: we represent both viewpoints in fair terms. I'm willing to work on the wording. But you have to be specific about what parts you find non-neutral. I hope the latest version gets us there. But if it doesn't, explain why, and we can try to deal with it. Randomran (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the removal of diffs, and I disagree with inserting caveats into the statement. You made those important changes again after Randomran rewrote the statement. I think the editor's membership in ARS should be mentioned and the scare quotes on inclusionist omitted, but I feel less strongly about these points. Randomran has restored his wording and diffs. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Randomran's assertion that each rewrite is distinct is accurate. I tried to get diffs to illustrate the evolution of each editor's proposed version, but there were too many intervening edits to show neatly. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I've tried not to simply restore the old version. I'm sincerely trying to be neutral. But letting one side's argument slip into the other side's is simply not a fair way to present both sides, nor is removing relevant diffs. Let me know what neutrality issues are outstanding, and let's try to collaborate to come up with a fair way to represent both sides. Don't just boldly cut down the other side's argument. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rather hard to take any proposal seriously when it mischaracterizes the facts, makes sweping assumpings of bad faith and masquerades as concern. No need whatsoever to punch up the narrative with diffs as if the facts themselves aren't enough. This isn't a coutroom so the jury can await the evidence being presented regarding the background of alleged canvassing and recruitment. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then explain how it mischaracterizes the facts in the "pro" argument, or explain it to me in a reply. I'm totally open to talking about this and making changes. But if you can't tell me what the problem is, I'm really just taking stabs in the dark, and I'd rather not waste my time anymore. Tell me what part is inaccurate, and I'll work on a wording that's accurate. Randomran (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV means we avoid undue weight - diffs aren't helpful unless your wikilawyering at ANI. We aren't trying to blame anyone as much as determine the core issues and move towards solutions. If you're gonna try to shame ARS for recruiting you should point out the editor acted on their own - "independent" - and that they were essentially cleared of wrongdoing. It also makes sense to show, since in theory this is about ARS, what ARS did in response and to clarify no evidence of any effect has been shown. In short even this version includes information that is unneeded. The basic question remains can ARS, like all other Wikiprojects, be notified of XfD's with the answer being "of course!" The rest is just spinning wheels and getting no where. It would be much more constructive to work on neutral and constructive solutions if the intent really is to be a part of helping ARS and Wikipedia as a whole. I was bold and turned it into one background statement instead of teh polarizes two sides argument. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, a single neutral introductory statement would be appropriate. However, merging Pro/Con together is not a viable solution. We can't agree on the statements' wordings separately. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is always respected. No sense faning the flames of a fire that need not burn in the first place.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close Proposal 2
This is another proposal that is interesting but also, IMHO, a waste of community energy. All Wikiprojects are notified of XfD, policy discussions, RfC's etc. This isn't changing and the issue remains keeping those notices neutral. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We know how you feel. But we're having an RFC because there's a legitimate good faith disagreement on this issue. Trying to make this decision unilaterally is barely more helpful than trying to make this decision by arguing back and forth. You have nothing to fear from an RFC of independent editors. Randomran (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And lo, we had one. A community RfC was held and independent admins helped close it affirming that indeed TfD and likely other XfDs were within ARS purvue. absoltely rediculous that you're entrenched on this. This issue has never been can ARS be notified but how to address non-neutral notifications. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all wikiprojects are notified of all these things, and in any case, they should only be contacted when they are in scope for the project. ARS is for AfD and (apparently, haven't seen a good example yet) for TfD: I can't really imagine it being for CfD, RfD or UfD (FfD at a stretch). A policy discussion like "should AfD be five or seven days" is directly relevant for the ARS and a neutral notification of it here is acceptable. A policy discussion of WP:NOT or something similar is not in the scope of the ARS and a notification here, no matter how neutral, is unacceptable. This belongs more with Proposal 4 than with 2, but since you used it as an argument here... Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're arguing against an RfC that you particiapted in that didn't go your way. It affirmed TfD's and likely other XfDs were fine. Sorry you've just proven that this is only about disrupting ARS to prove a point because you don't like it. If it impacts a Wikiprojects work the Wikiproject should be able to quickly suss out what interest a discussion may hold. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am replying to you, I am not "disrupting X to prove a point", I have not even argued that proposal 2 should stay open, I just replied to your irrelevant comments about this. While the RfC affirmed that TfD's were likely okay, the uninvolved comments also acknowledged that e.g. some examples would have been nice. I just reiterated this. It's very nice to argue that all XfD's are within thescope of the ARS, but it hasn't been shown how a content improvement action is going to impact a RfD or a CfD, nor can't I remember any TfD where any content was improved to save it. Fram (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may need to backtrack to reality a bit. No one was looking to actively incorporate TfD and the entire RfC was to address one editor's edit-warring to remove even the neutral link to a TfD. The RfC affirmed that TfDs were fine to be included in our scope. You and I may never agree and I see quibbling - oh this one, maybe, oh that one could never, etc. - as a collosal waste of energy. You see little value in ARS at TfD, the community disagrees with your assessment. The rest remains arguing RfC 2.0. I'm glad you seem to agree that this proposal as well is likely unneeded.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, do we have a list of templates tagged for rescue in the past? I remember the template NYRepresentatives, listed at Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6, where no improvements were made but Benjiboi and Ikip came along to !vote keep. The only other one I can find was the ridiculous (and also deleted) template CrapArticle. Fram (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has invested any energies into TfD and ARS but to assert the concept was fine. I see no need for a list at this time. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per Benjiboi. Ikip (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support closure per nom.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Article Rescue Squadron can conduct itself like other wikiprojects.
Again, trying to summarise the two sides of this dispute. Undoubtedly overlaps with Proposal 2, but is sufficiently distinct. It may be possible to combine them. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The con here really needs to be rephrased. There isn't any "right" of notification intrinsic to being a Wikiproject; Wikiprojects are notified because it's a good way to alert knowledgeable editors. Because ARS has a completely unlimited scope, you're not likely to find editors knowledgeable about any specific topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about now? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the slanted title "ARS is a WikiProject with an unlimited scope over content", and reformated the text, removing more absolute terms, "any" "perfect". Ikip (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need to work on this at a separate page. We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point. Merely listing a few options is not going to get good feedback, and definitely not on the main ARS page. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused Randomran.
 * You wrote: "I don't understand how you can ... continue to push comments about me and WP:FICT that are both incorrect and irrelevant."
 * And here you write: "We also need to present some of the events that have led us to this point."
 * Our first contact was on FICT. You, Phil and Masem would have not suddenly shown an interest in this project if it was not for me being heavily involved in the FICT RFC, which would have merged or buried thousands of articles.
 * In addition, one editor here has been incredibly disruptive. When I talk about his behavior editors who support your position, cry foul, and say this is not the right forum to talk about this. But you freely talk about my behavior, first vaguely, and now openly, and no one who supports your position is arguing you should remove these comments.
 * In addition, no one here, in fact, no one anywhere has argued that I have broken any rules. I have followed all wikipedia rules. The rules guide or behavior and tell us what we can and cannot do. I find it incredibly disingeous to punish me, or by extension punish ARS for following the rules. Again Randomran, if you don't like the current rules, change them. But don't attempt to punish a person or project for following all the rules. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with WP:FICT, and our first contact is irrelevant. I'm not talking about those events. I'm talking about the actual recruitment drive and subsequent talk page linking. Which isn't about you, although it's related to you. I'm not looking to punish or single out your behavior, but I don't think it will be possible to present this issue without talking about a few things you did. Specifically, contacting 300 inclusionists. I'm trying not to make this personal, so please don't. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen, we should be able to present this civilly and neutrally. We should be able to present what may have changed ARS's scope, and we should also be able to present how other attempts like AMiB were mishandled and needlessly inflammatory and accusatory. I think the first step is to move this RFC under preparation to its own page. Either as a subpage here, or somewhere else. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I STRONGLY oppose moving this to a side page. A sub page will only isolate the page, and lower the number of editors who contribute to this RfC. If we all really want a broad conensus on how to proceed, moving to a side page would not be good. It is obvious that several dozen editors, with varying views from all spectrums, are watching this page. There is no guarantee that this same number of people will watch a side page. Ikip (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that the discussion would be widely advertised per WP:Advertising discussions. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with that approach is that the RfC becomes one that is behavioural in basis and causes people to "take sides" - it may be uncomfortable, but I think we can dispense with the history as regards the way the disputes have been pursued by either side. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a subpage, perhaps under WP:Centralized discussion or WP:Requests for comment, would be a good idea. Placing the main page in WP space would give it a separate WT page for threaded discussion. The main page can then be structured, perhaps like a formal RfC. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going to need to have a subpage anyway. It's an issue of organization and presentation, because having all those comments on the ARS talkpage is going to be a mess. But it's also an issue of getting independent feedback. We don't want to retread AMiB vs ikip, which got needlessly personal and accusatory. We want to frame the issue fairly, and then let a fresh and independent group deal with it. We can get appropriate feedback by advertising for it. Randomran (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Again, perhaps well-meaning but unhelpful, IMHO. We certainly are a WikiProject - we are considered a Maintainance Wikiproject. Our scope is XfD and the issues that impact what and how items are deleted. We specialized in finding and rescuing content that is encyclopedic and should be saved from deletion. Other projects in our field may specialize in creating articles and how to work with newbie users along those lines - we do some of that because those are some of the articles at AfD. We concern ourselves not mindlessly working a conveyor belt of items headed for the dust bin but also effecting positive changes that would make a lot less work for us by keeping some of those items from being sent to AfD. If our efforts greatly lessen the abuses of AfD so that only articles that really need to be at AfD are discussed we all win and community energy can be better focussed on seeing which ones really have merit. For instance, many articles should go through a merge process instead of AfD. We have gotten many waves of articles that should have seen a merge into list effort instead and then only those articles that were truely notable on their own broken out. So, we are a Wikiproject and I think the community would reject the concept that Wikiprojects shouldn't be notified of discussions that impact them. The notifications should be neutral and rather minimal encouraging centralized discussion. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is definitely disputed - it was disputed even as part of my suggestion to have an RfC above. Feel free to suggest things that you think are under dispute as well, as I'm still going through trying to extract salient questions Fritzpoll (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we need to stop trying to hash the issue out among ourselves, and just try to frame and explain the issue so that an independent group can deal with it. Randomran (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be instructive to note that a couple of the editors who have opined that we are a wikiproject, Ikip and Benjiboi, have themselves both been lightning rods in various disputes. Maybe there is a need for an ARS and a Wikiproject Inclusionism, for those who want to use the rescue list for purposes beyond the simple improvement of articles at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue really got away from its essence. The idea that ARS is a WikiProject is an interesting philosophical question, and I guess it undercuts a lot of the issues. But really, the reason why this issue started is because of notification. We're not here to ask whether ARS should be allowed to have an article assessment template on every talk page, or whether ARS should have a task force to bring a few articles to FA status, thus making it consistent with other WikiProjects. Nor are we talking about whether to remove ARS's unique right to put its call sign right on an article, to make it consistent with other WikiProjects. We're talking about whether ARS should be allowed to notify editors of stuff that's only indirectly related to rescuing articles, and don't involve improving articles through the editing process. We're going to need to split this out into two issues -- the WikiProject issue, and the notification of policy RFCs issue. Randomran (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really not. We don't create ways to divide who is the best Wikipedian nor do we find ways to cause divisiveness and gradiations in Wikiprojects. Even admins are considered, at the end of the day, editors. We don't - or at least shouldn't - excuse or encourage special treatment for any. Your work and actions speak for themselves. ARS is a maintenance Wikiproject but that's really just a way to differeentiate between subject-area wikiprojects. This is the thrird proposal that, IMHO, seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole section is off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter if this is or isn't a Wikiproject. It only matters insofar as Ikip has made the argument that Wikiprojects have inalienable rights. The argument on whether this is a Wikiproject or not is a distraction from "What is the utility of doing [thus and so]?" If there's no good reason to do something here, then it doesn't really matter what other Wikiprojects do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's a flawed argument, too. Yes, WikiProjects have rights. But they also have responsibilities like article assessment, and article completion (e.g.: Good Article or Featured Article status) that ARS isn't concerned with. And they have limits that ARS doesn't, like not putting their call sign right on a main article page. ARS is unique, and I don't think anyone at ARS really wants to throw that away to become a WikiProject. Or maybe they do? Randomran (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, Randorman. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects and all wikiproject-like things have the "right" to operate in the most efficient manner in helping the encyclopedia and the "responsibility" to not harm the encyclopedia or uselessly impede helping the encyclopedia. Talk page tags exist to help get interested editors to the project, article assessment exists to coordinate cleanup and article writing efforts, etc.
 * ARS can be a wikiproject, it can be a centralized cleanup page, or it can be a llama wool blanket; all that matters is if it's helping and/or harming the encyclopedia. Let's focus on the function or malfunction of actual practices, instead of getting in philosophical fistfights over ascribing rights and responsibilities to arbitrary structures. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Article Rescue Squadron can be directly notified of other discussions, including policy talk pages
Seems to be the important one, although the other questions cannot be ignored - partly adapted from Randomeran's suggestion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this addition. I suspect this is the most contentious issue. The others aren't so bad: XfD's are not a vote, and ARS usually succeeds on the merits of their improvements to an article. But this one is trickier. Either way, I'm comfortable working out a phrasing that presents both sides of the issue, and then puts it to a fresh group of editors. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Zero for four I'm afraid. This one too seems to be a collosal waste of energy. This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Wikiprojects have alsways been involved in discussions that impacts the work. This is not going to change. I suggest closing this per WP:Snow. The issue has not been notification but of percieved canvassing and the resulting actions and re-actions to all of that. I think the real question you're looking for is how can ARS neutrally and within community standards handle posts that sem to be violating canvassing? This has been answered a few times and the correct answer is not deleting anything. If something is waaay over the top I could see adding a hat and hab and restating the request neutrally but in my experience none of that was really needed. If anything deserves closer community-wide scrutiny it would be the reaction to perceived canvassing threads and an overly-aggressive stance of mischaracterizing this entire project thereby turning this very talkpage into a battlefield. Nothing at WP:Canvass suggests we pillory people and break out the pitchforks against a monster. Our civility policies are pretty clear we don't do this. Let's pretend those who post notifications here have rather good intentions. The rest is just working to see that those notices are neutral. This really hasn't been that big of an issue until the re-actions became a bit over-heated. Does anybody seriously think you're going to stop ARS, get the project deleted? Stop notifications of other discussions, etc.? It's really not. What remains then is for the very few people who have been posting the "alarming" posts to craft neutral messages and for those who have been raising alarms to really look at if there is any noticable damage if a not is non-NPOV, if so, simply state, this needs to be refactored or otherwise mitigated to ease neutrality concerns. You really don't need the community to spell this out. Likewise we're not about to topic ban anyone from here who is willing to modify their approach towards working with other editors here. I really don't see a need for any RfCs at the moment nor a strong need to elect or appoint one or more people to police or patrol or otherwise watch over this page and project. We will always have newbies who will make mistakes and our mandate is to help them. I would be very embarrassed if they were treated hostily instead bacause they were honestly just trying to save anarticle they felt was worth keeping. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason you think this is a colossal waste of energy is probably because you don't think there's a problem. Obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree, or else this discussion wouldn't have started in the first place. I think you should be entitled to present this as a non-problem, and I think you should do your best to present it as such. But the complaints won't go away just because you declare it a non-problem. It will take a group of independent editors say these four issues are non-problems (or that any one of them are indeed problems, and need to be addressed). Nobody is trying to stop ARS from improving articles, or get ARS deleted, or even get anyone in trouble. It's just about keeping ARS on task, and there are legitimate disagreements about what that task is. That's what an RFC will accomplish. After that, there won't be much to argue about. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Banjeboi, I'm afraid as I've worked through reading the disputes on this page, I can see that you don't perceive there to be a problem. Unfortunately, that is always the nature of a dispute - one side thinks an action is appropriate, so can't understand why the other side is kicking up a fuss.  Unfortunately, there is a dispute over these points, and unless we get our heads out of the sand, you guys will be going around and around in circles over them.  Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, I disagree with your recent use of / to collapse active discussions. You've made your objections to the proposals known. Maybe you could ask Fritzpoll or a neutral uninvolved admin to effect any early closes? Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, my opinion on this is: The ARS is here to change articles so that they meet the guidelines and policies, not to change policies and guidelines so that those match the articles. Fram (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good way of putting it. I think the problem stems from the fact that many self-selected ARS participants want to do both, and their actions with respect to the latter are confused by some as being ARS-sanctioned. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More that ARS is being used as a springboard for the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly no more than it's being used by deletionists to distract participants from actually fixing articles, it would seem. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do refrain from tossing off accusations of bad faith or conspiracy if you can't back them up. Not everything undertaken in good faith is a good idea or will have good results, and conversely not everything with bad results was undertaken in bad faith.
 * If you think anyone is here to purposefully disrupt things, kindly name names and explain how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of ARS working to change policies so that more articles are kept. I see individual editors invested in discussions that certainly may effect those like the recently created bilateral blah-de-da taskforce that will help find a path forward for hundreds of related articles. These types of discussions always go on and it's rather odd to think this or any wikiproject wouldn't be somewhat interested in discussions that affect the work they do. If we are working on, for instance, five bilateral blah-de-da articles and a task force is discussing how to re-organize those articles, it certainly makes sense to bring oursleves up to date on those discussions. Likewise when we had dozens of articles on minor league sports teams and no notability guideline. I think we suggested that discussing if a guideline should exist would make sense. Did we create, run and vote keep everything, hardly. We just tried to address each article on it's own merits because no guideline did exist. We also coached the main editor in soem possible routes forward so they wouldn't end up creating 20-30 articles that were also then mostly deleted. Frankly I see us as often bringing dispassionate editors to subjects they would likely never touch otherwise - I personally have little to no interest in most sports subjects - so helping offer input (here is what policy states, here are options, what makes sense?) can be quite helpful. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record - this again is not can a project be notified issue but how should non-NPOV notifications be effectively handled. I think this section should also close as being repetitious to many previous discussions. Everyone agrees that notifications should be NPOV. No one will get support that projects can't be notified. What remains is how should any project deal with non-NPOV messages. This doesn't require an RfC at all. Seems like some civil and thoughtful suggestion should be discussed that would apply to all projects. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, it might be different if ARS were dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. But what we have now is a group that was assembled by recruiting 300 people with specific views on content and then linking them to content policy discussions. It's pretty obvious what will happen when people get an invite because "you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability", and then they are linked about discussions about notability guidelines. But in principle, this selective-recruitment and discussion-linking shouldn't happen for any content viewpoint and policy. Again, an invite based on a viewpoint isn't polarizing in of itself, but doing that hundreds of times and linking them to a relevant policy discussion is problematic. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually ARS is dispassionate editors with multiple viewpoints, albeit with a common desire to rescue articles from deletion. with the qualifier "on notable subjects". You are presuming that those who work on tagged articles are members and that everyone (or most) were recruited. I wasn't and this project was plenty busy before I showed up. One can theorize that there is some net effect but personally I've not seen any major upswing in participation, articles tagged or discussions swayed greatly and certainly not in any cohesive or organized effort. In fact when the invite tag was first employed it seemed a bit non-neutral and was replaced by a neutral one. That's pretty much what has happened every time something came along that seemed problematic. Getting back on point - any project can be notified of discussion impacting their work. Notices should be kept brief and NPOV. for those that wish to ascribe to inclusionism there is WikiProject Inclusion; likewise WikiProject Deletion may befit those who see a calling to removing items. ARS is neither and has rebuffed either POV. If another seemingly well-intended editor mass invited a pile of editors who ascribed to deletionism ARS would not work to remove them, shame them, coerce or otherwise marginalize them. It is our job as Wikipedians to welcome them. We don't pin badges on anyone accept a welcome tag if they sign up as members. Personally I deal with so many editors and articles I'm rather forced to just treat everything on a case by case basis. Assess it, act accordingly and move on. My experience with some of the questionable postings is that I'm rather immune to pleas of please keep my article or those meanines are trying to delete ____. I think other ARS folks may be along the same lines. Meh, whatever, I'll poke in and see if I can offer anything. We simply aren't to be discounted as the army of like-minded inclusionists as many of these pointy threads would have anyone believe. Are some members? Likely, but I really don't care if they are doing ARS work and helping improve articles. Am I in any way interested in a witch hunt? No. We have the survey idea which seems to be showing support. If we a figure a way to make it happen it could be repeated in a few months then looked at to see if there are repeaters. The goal remains to help editors do better. This proposal can also be ended, IMHO, per WP:Snow. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow closing a discussion because only you say so seems a little...off. I think this is the most likely to end up at RfC Fritzpoll (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I really have anything new to say, and I don't think I'm going to persuade you. I'll just say that I think you understate the effect of recruiting 300 people with inclusionist templates. Regardless of how neutrally the invite was phrased, the invites were sent purely to build a roster of people with a specific content view. That bias doesn't really affect article improvement, so I actually agree with you on that much. Regardless of peoples' viewpoint on content, they'll either improve the article to make it meet our guidelines, or they won't. The problem is when a roster narrowly built upon a specific content view is invited to craft our content policy. Not just because of what it means every time that ARS's new roster talks policy, but because of what it means if other content viewpoints organize a roster in the same way. We would essentially have armies and generals, and thus endless wars. You might not see that as legitimate problem, but other people do, including me. So let's put that question to the community. Worst thing that happens is I'm wrong, and there's no problem, and clearly state ARS's new scope. Even though it wouldn't be the result I want, that would be good for everyone because we can get closure, and people will be able to leave each other alone. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off you keep misleading that we recruited 300 people. We didn't recruit anyone, a sole editor did. It was agreed that any editor could recruit to any Wikiproject but in response we created a neutral ARS invite template. There is no evidence that the recruitment has had any net effect on discussions and ARS never took place in a recruitment drive. Then we build on this wobbly premise - y'know that all those who are ARS members would be swayed to an inclusionist POV - that these now converted ARS talkpage watchers will suddenly show up and all vote keep or whatever the inclusionist POV on some policy discussion and further that that won't be quickly dismissed as empty votes if that's all they are. ARS scope hasn't grown or even changed - the last RfC simply clarified that TfD (and likely other XfDs) were officially ok. This unfounded worry that POV armies of policy fighters will assembly and rise up is rather pointy and seems if it were sent to any RfC it wouldn't mention ARS at all. We are not a unique Wikiproject just one that a handful of editors strongly object to because of thier disdain against all things "inclusionist" and their concern that ARS is swaying toward some POV because of one editors' work. Again this remains a user conduct issue that most editors are simply not that troubled over. No RfC is needed to address these issues. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who did it, it only matters that the recruitment drive happened, and it does have an impact. And again, if ARS is being singled out for being inclusionist, it's being singled out in the same way that any group with such a viewpoint-specific recruiting drive should be singled out. It's not up to either of us to decide if it's okay. That's why we're having the RFC. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does matter to clarify that ARS never sanctioned a recruitment drive and this was undertaken by one editor - who, when blocked for it, was unblocked as no canvassing was found to have occurred. No impact or harm has shown to have occurred either. Discussion and XfD are not votes but a consensus process. Volume of votes, in theory that ARS has done any block voting, may have an impact but more likely quality of discussion will be teh greater measure. Even policy decisions that are flawed are, in theory, amended and clarified to fix areas that need correcting. Wikipedia is an organic project - it changes and grows. If a policy is great one year and then needs modificatins we do so. I've yet to see a case where ARS either block voted or otherwise negatively impacted some discussion bringing harm to the encyclopedia and this entire thread is one massive pile of assuming bad faith. If Ikip sucessfully recruited some inclusionists as far as i can tell the worst thing that would happen is they waste some energy casting empty !votes. guess what? That was happening before ARS ever existed and would happen regardless if we were here. The likely net result is encyclopedic content will more likely be kept in some form. I see that as a good thing. Can we move on now to finding actual solutions addressing the actual concerns?  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive517. You are correct that there was no consensus for administrator action against Ikip at that time. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Yes a perfect example where removing the links themselves was hardly needed and civil discussion could have resolved the perceived harm that may have occurred. Again, a user issue not a project issue. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   04:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As with Proposal 2, I object to this revision of the Con section by Benjiboi. The editing of the Pro section is fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Revision which neutralizes the context. Throwing gas on an ember is not WP:NPOV, however, dousing the spark is.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are genuinely trying to find solutions then we should do so neutrally. Both pro and con verbiage should remian neutral. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I think we should work to represent both sides fairly. But to the degree we respect neutrality, it's to present both sides of the argument fairly, to the degree that they reflect the actual facts and disagreement. I've altered it once again to try to be more neutral, and present both sides. But if there are any outstanding issues, it would be helpful to know what they are. I'd happily rewrite it myself, and think that would be more productive than the "pro" side writing the arguments for both sides. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote a detailed comment above that applies to this section also. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV is rather non-negotiable. Focussing on non-issues doesn't help address real concerns. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's unfair that you get to rephrase the issue, and then argue that it's a non-issue that should not even be discussed. NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, but if you want to use it, I think you're misinterpreting it:
 * "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."
 * There is no issue without multiple conflicting perspectives, is the first thing. If both the pro and con argument agree "there is no issue", then there will be no issue. So to the extent that the perspectives conflict, I'm trying to verify them with diffs. You're entitled to interpret those diffs in a way that there is no problem, no systemic bias in ARS, no risk of further battleground activity if other project spaces follow suit. But you're not entitled to just remove the argument that there's a problem in order to assert "there is no problem".
 * I'm willing to work on the "con" argument if you can offer specific constructive criticisms. Randomran (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you're missing why focussing a propsal statement on the actions of one editor, acting independently, as justifying sanctioning an entire Wikiproject is quite POV. That you're also missing that conflating those newly added members as somehow having any negative influence without evidence and extrapolating this to potential harm on policy discussions, again with no evidence, seems synthesis. Staying on point here, the core question is cana Wikiproject be notified of policy discussions - the answer remains "if kept neutral there really is no issue." -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming the policy discussion are relevant. Links to irrelevant policy discussions, replaced after being removed, call into question why those links are being added in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points: (i) If they aren't neutrally stated then we civilly work to address that and (ii) any irrelevant things will be posted to Wikiprojects, these as well should be handled civilly - I'm not sure this has much to do with us here, perhaps ___ would be better?, etc. - as we try to help each other. In some cases you may be mistaken and the thread may bring about a healthy idea that may positively effect the "irrelevant" thread. In addition ARS regulars, members or otherwise, cover a fairly wide birth; give that I'm fairly confident that someone with more knowledge than I can help suss out if something will impact what we do. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as a case in point, when someone said outright "Come back me up at WP:FICT" and I removed only the links, you replaced them and accused me of (vaguely explained) bad faith. So perhaps there are civility and relevance problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close Proposal 4 as well
Article Rescue Squadron can be directly notified of other discussions, including policy talk pages - does this not seem fairly obvious that any Wikiproject can be notified neutrally? I think so, the rest remains vaguely interesting but hardlt swaying anyone that this remains a behaviour and civility issue rather than an ARS issue. Endless and circular discussions are impeding efforts to make positive and constructive changes. This entire thread shoudl also be closed, IMHO. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. as nom. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

30K of copy-pasting from stale discussions
Lets just call a spade a spade there are three issues I see here:
 * 1) Major Conflict of interest. Asking many of these editors what Article Rescue Squadron should or should not do is like asking a spammer how to build the rules on spamming.  The edit history of these editors is not full of rescuing articles, it is best represented in attempts to delete/merge articles.
 * 2) Hypocricy and Censorship. Editors who regularly canvas in other projects and discuss policy on other wikiprojects are expecting editors here to follow rules that no other wikiproject does.

Here is an example of how FICT is canvassed and discussed on other wikiprojects. WITH ABSOLUTLY NO COMPLAINTS THAT THIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED, not once. Indeed, many of the editors complaining about ARS here, openly and actively canvas and discuss policy in other wikiprojects.

Keep in mind that this is only regarding FICT, other, more popular guidelines are 20 times as big.

I know the foxes petitioning to guard the hen house will not be pursuaded. "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Ikip (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...is that seriously a post from October 2005? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody wants a conflict of interest. That's why we're putting the issue to an independent audience. The worst thing that happens for either of us is that one of us gets an outcome we don't like. But the outcome will be fair if we represent both sides of the issue, and keep the "foxes" (on both sides) from circling the henhouse. When the time comes, we'll let the dogs decide. You will have your audience, but it will be an independent one. Randomran (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely this page is more suited to discussing the way forward for the ARS in 2009 rather than what some editors may have thought about other matters four years ago? pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I hope more will take notice and help in threads like the one below, where I propose a contest. We really need to be getting back to rescuing articles already.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to open the RfC
Right, I think we have enough discussion here to establish opening an RfC on Proposals 2 and 4. I'm not sure about the status of Proposal 1 since it has been reopened, but a prior RfC has just concluded. I'd suggest doing the RfC on an ARS subpage at Article Rescue Squadron/RfC May 2009 or similar, listing at WP:RFC, and notifying at WP:VPP and on WP:CENT as well as including a link on this page. I'd establish that there is no need for individual editors to be contacted on this - for a neutral outside view, we need to not notify any individual directly. After a week or two, we can ask a neutral admin (not me, I hasten to add) to close the discussion on the RfC and see what the consensus is. That is, not a poll, although a straw poll format might be adopted. Any thoughts before I go ahead and do this? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed This remains another disruption to this Wikiproject and needs to stop. POV against inclusionism is fine on individual userpages but thi sWikiproject remains neutral welcoming all editors. If you can't see that targetting ARS in this fashion is divisive then I see pushing for malformed RfC's as more disruption. The issue has always been about specific editor's conduct. The few who engaged in posting non-neutral messages and those who acted rather incivilly towards them. Wasting the community energy on - yet another - RfC is not a constructive way forward and none of the proposals addressed the core issue. Likewise an RfC singling out any Wikiproject is doomed to failure. We don't make special rules as such. We have policies that notices should be neutral. We have policies on civility. If you want to discuss if Wikiprojects can be notified of policy discussion (hint: the answer is yes) you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council if an RfC would be an appropriate use of energy on this. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Benjiboi: ARS simply closing the issue is not really fair, and won't really work. The issue will continue to rise every time a notice is posted, and part of the goal here is to get closure. If this RFC is "doomed to failure", then let it fail on its own merits in front of an independent group of Wikipedians. But there's a reasonable basis to treat ARS as something other than "just another Wikiproject", especially in light of its scope as it is defined on the main page, and the recent recruiting tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
 * Well continually harassing any Wikiproject is also unfair. You can drop the recruiting accusation as that was a single independent editor and steps were taken to ensure a neutral invite template representing the group was created. ARS has been extremely patient with a small group of editors disrupting and making pointy comments and imposing their view on what this project should or should not do. If any of this had been handled civilly and neutrally we would only be discussing constructive solutions. Instead a rather pointy RfC in various incarnations has been posited - each one missing the entire core concern and suggesting that ARS as a group is responsible for a few members actions and therefore we all must pay dearly by entertaining this charade of accusations. Non-neutral posts have always been and always will be posted by folks innocently or not to various Wikiprojects. We should handle them civilly per policy. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Start handling them at all, and you would have a point. I have not disrupted the project, I have not made pointy comments, and I have not imposed my view: I have raised my views and objections here, out in the open, for everyone to see and discuss. You have asked to take canvassing concerns up with the users involved on their talk page, not here. Even though I considered that a bad idea, I treid it out, only to be lambasted here as an uncivil editor for it. I have tried to discuss things civilly and neutrally, but you have not responded in kind, ignoring the problems and accusing me repeatedly of creating drama. If no members of the ARS (or at least those active on this talk page) act against misuse of the project, then that brings the project into disrepute, despite their good work in saving articles. If on the other hand those people who do point out these problems get vilified (both those doing this regularly, and people who come along once, give their opinion, and get nearly booed away), then the impression of the ARS as a closed community of like-minded editors with a larger agenda than what is displayed on the project page gets only stronger. But could you explain how we all "must pay dearly"? No one is obliged to post here, to spend their time here, or to react to all this. I do it of my own free will, and I hope it's the same for you. Your point is made clear, and continuing discussion is interesting, but not necessary to get it across, so if you feel so badly about it, just do something else. Fram (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have although some is being done offline as this talkpage has been turned, ironicly, into a battleground. To address a user on canvassing issues it needs to be done civilly. If you were wearing your admin hat at the tie perhas you could ask at AN for someone else to intervene and post something if they shared your concern. As it was i recall your efforts as rather incivil therefore relatively unheard. No one seem to share the abuse of ARS concerns, in my experience editors simply focus on rescuing tagged items if they can. I've felt obligated to address the stated and underlying concerns as patience has allowed, if you feel I was incivil or unhelpful I apologize. Efforts to deal with moving forward are rather blunted when our talkpage is circularly filled with pointy threads "concerned" with how bad ARS is in some ways. Many projects have been back-burnered until this recent mess dies down and too can be archived. Meanwhile the work continues elsewhere. If the arguing continues on this page I'll look to admin support to see if my disruption concerns are generally valid because I've never seen such acrimony (I may be lucky is all) on Wikiprojecs as such. We've been very patient but this really isn't going anywhere. efforts to address the issues from February really aren't going to go forward until the fighting on this page stops and I really don't see the ARS regulars as being the source of derision. FWIW, even if this thread is archived in minutes from now to me the core concerns are still valid and need to be addressed. Do I want to do that with those who have been continually arguing here - not really, but they will be done regardless. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I appreciate Fritzpoll trying to treat both sides fairly and manage this. The only thing I'd add is give us a couple of days to get closure on issue 1, because I'm not sure it was really re-opened for any good reason. Also, I'd add that we really don't need to hear from AMiB and the other people who participated in the AN/Is against ikip, and we don't really need to hear from ARS either. We know how they feel. Let's see how this looks to neutral outside observers. The last thing I'd want is to watch the ARS turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between the usual suspects. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * God lord Randomran, you are not neutral this, you never have been. Stop saying you are. Everytime I explain why you are not neutral you accuse me of bad faith. Do we need this drama reapeated here again? Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree a bit with Ikip here. ARS detractors have turned this talkpage into the very toxic battleground that is repeatedly suggested as a concern. Is it any wonder that those of us who have invested energy into improving the work we do are quite over the limit of tolerance on this? Really, if you want to help rescue content please do that, if you don't then maybe one of the hundreds of other WP:Wikiprojects will suit your interestes better.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose as well as if anything, it is time to continue rescuing articles! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose unneccessary RFC, one which acts to bring editors to a battleground where none need exist. Disruption of the project is to be avoided.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment for what it's worth, the RFC shouldn't involve any of us here. So we can already get back to editing articles while a group of independent, unaffiliated editors deal with it. When the RFC finishes, so will the drama. There's something to be said for getting someone neutral to sign off on whether or not there's a problem. There is no value to preventing a good faith discussion from taking place. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is silly that the members of a project should not be involved in the RFC of the project. Ikip (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. That's rather laughable that a RfC wanting to sanction ARS in some way would be launched yet some ARS members would be disinvited. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea of sanctions is quite the laughable one. But who's suggesting sanctions? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Each of those proposals, in essence, would be limiting or sanctioning this Wikiproject in some way from being notified or allowed to be involved in XfD or discussion on policies. IMHO, each one is a proposed sanction that would violate how Wikiprojects are treated by community standards. If your goal is to stop all Wikiprojects from such activities then this is certainly the wrong venue. If yo're trying to stpop just this one then the RfC is malformed as singling out one of many for special treatment, all, at its core, for user conduct not anything the project did or does.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of talk about what this project should be and what it should be used for. But you can't "sanction" a project-space page. You can sanction editors, but project-space pages are just tools. Deciding how a tool should be used and what it should be used for is a common policy RFC issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that almost every policy RFC is about that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We may have to agree to disagree a bit here. Theoretical discussions, especially contentious ones, don't seem to be adding to helping this project. They seem to be doing the opposite. We all know very well your take on things as you have repeated them continuously. Great patience has been shown to try to reason with you. If your not having much constructive effect here it might be best for all concerned if you disengage and focus on areas on Wikipedia on which you do approve. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes yes. "If you're unhappy with this project for any reason say your piece and go away." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. There are problems with the ARS (mainly with how it is used by some editors, and how most other regulars don't see a problem with these attempts, even if they aren't influenced by them) which taint their good work in rescuing content (articles, no idea if anything else has ever been rescued). The problems this project (or some of the most vocal editors of it) has with scrutiny (as evidenced by the opposition to this RfC, and the suggestions made earlier to ban a critic from this page and to remove all discussions of canvassing, without adressing the canvassing itself) is evidence of it becoming a group which excludes itself from the normal workings of the encyclopedia as a collaborative effort and tries to suppress all dissenting viewpoints. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your POV and I believe it is at least slightly off. No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK or that ARS would have approved the recruiting that took place. And no one is suggesting that the issues can't be addressed in a civil and constructive manner. This simply isn't the way to do it. Any concerns of a few editors "taint"ing ARS' "good work" pale compared to the negative tainting of ARS accross multiple forums and the massive disruption to our work here. The only reason that ARS critic was being considered for a ban was behavior, not for criticism. Constructive efforts to address canvassing have actually been underway offline as ARS' own talkpage was turned into a battleground by a handful of critics. No one has suggested that ARS be treated any special or different from other Wikiprojects except by those very same critics who seem to think this Wikiproject should be banned in some way from XfD or policy discussions etc. That we oppose dissenting viepoints is rather laughable as well. Ikips voluminous suggestions have a reasonable success rate but we don't follow them or anyone else's POV lockstep at all. If it' a good idea and may help it is considered and quite a few proposals have positiviely impacted Wikipedia in addition to the hundreds of rescues we've been involved in. The only thing keeping us from implementing more at this point is that very same group of editors who seem determined to make a much bigger deal out of a handful(?) of rather non-neutral posts or other posts they deemed as canvassing. I'm glad we've recorded all these posts in one place so we have them for future reference. Sadly it seems fairly obvious that no matter what ARS does as a group there will be detractors anxious to find fault rather then work toward equitable solutions that remain civil and neutral. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "No one is suggesting that canvassing is OK", but no one is taking action against it or even recognising that some posts here were pure canvassing. And no one has yet shown that they can address the problem in a civil and constructive way, all I have seen is shooting at the messenger, either for discussing it here ("drama", "bullying", "public shaming"), or for discussing it with the editor directly ("uncivil"!). I have been asked repeatedly to join another wikiproject, giving strongly the impression that I am not welcome here. Removal of canvassing posts is not allowed: discussion of canvassing posts is not allowed. All criticism is considered "drama", even when it is a perfectly normal suggestion to change the haphazard manual way of archiving to an automated one, which met with the approval of most people. When other wikiprojects are canvassed to join a policy discussion, that gets serious disapproval as well. When wikiprojects are asked to join a policy discussion that is outside the scope of the project, things get even worse.
 * (sigh) Again, just because ARS members didn't break out buckets of boiling oil and whacking sticks to punish poor editing decisions doesn't mean some grand green light was lit. I would say that it was better to ignore the posts or respond to the core issue than to edit war and blow any of them way beyond porportion. And actually only those pushing for ARS-wide scope and sanction RfC's are demonstarting they are unable to address the issues civilly. Just because ARS members don't over-react the same way the critics do doesn't mean there isn't concern but we have looked to making constructive efforts while those opposed to ARS have worked to make this talkpage a battleground. You seem to ignore efforts to make constructive changes and only want to belabour an issue that really doesn't seem to be an ARS issue at all. it may be a user issue. And the rather hostile re-actions have been a civility issue but those too have dissipated. And now we're rehashing other stale issues seemingly without any need. The archiving again? I've agreed to let thread stale for a week even if they seem dead, that was your timing for an autobot. Please don't pretend that ARS has to change to meet your needs to see pages of pointy circular discussions when it is only serving to disrupt this project. We added a search mechanism for your claim you somehow couldn't find something. Up until this page being turned into a battleground items were archived chronologically roughly by stale date. We didn't need any other method. If your intent is to continue to argue and disparage seemingly everything we do or don't do perhaps finding or creating another wikiproject would be in everyone's best interest. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Benjiboi, if you and the others had adressed the canvassing posts when they occurred, all this could have been avoided. But you are still blaming the messenger instead of tackling the underlying issue. You didn't need to defend all canvassers with the most spurious of arguments (e.g. labelling them incorrectly as newbies, when they were well established experienced editors who started editing in 2005 or 2006), you could have just as easily continued rescuing articles. No one is stopping you from doing that but yourself. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that had edit-warring not ensued that we wouldn't have addressed the concerns. If someone posts "Please help protect this policy from being deleted" or whatever, the correct response is to civilly work with that editor to either refactor or possibly hat the note so that instead a neutral message is conveyed; and work to help them see that future messages should be neutral as well. Those criticizing ARS, are blaming this group for having posts appear on our talkpage while simultaneously edit-warring and behaving reprehensibly toward all concerned. These proposals all miss the mark. This issue has never been about scope as that hasn't changed and is being used as a red herring, IMHO, it's only been about non-neutral notifications. And, no, it matters not whether it's a newby or experienced editor, our civility policies don't encurage less civil behaviours for certain users. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not be convinced, but in most cases, people here did not even recognise that there were problems with the canvassing posts. It takes two to edit-war, by the way, so don't blame that on the critics alone. As for "behaving reprehensibly", I don't feel that I have acted in such a way. And the matter is also about scope, as evidenced by the discussion I had with Ikip on this pages before this current RFC: talk page posts here are appropriate when they are neutral and in scope: a neutral message about e.g. a policy change is still an attempt to skew process by contacting a selected group of editors. It does not matter if such posts actually have that result or not, the posting in itself is wrong (misguided or deliberate), and that should be adressed. Examples of edits from this year by some of the most active members of the project: a post like "This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission." is an attempt to get like-minded editors to join a policy discussion, not to save any articles. Never mind an edit like "I agree with Dream Focus and A Nobody. I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This is not about saving articles which could meet our guidelines and policies with some work, but about rallying editors to change the guidelines and policies so that articles which are now delete-worthy can be kept anyway. Fram (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually neutral policy posts are fine for any Wikiproject and each project themselves should decide if the post merits any involvement. I've learned that I certainly don't know everything so seeing how a policy change may effect a Wikiproject really should be left for that project to decide. The only additional comment to your statement is the perceived issue if an article is incorrectly kept, sorry but just like if an article is incorrectly deleted this can and likely will be addressed. Wikipedians are people and people make mistakes, mistakes can be corrected but volunteers need to be treated politely as we want to encourage each other to make improvements and keep volunteering. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG OPPOSE the issues above have gotten less and less urgent as the days have goes on. Ikip (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop shouting? You did it in dozens of AFD's recently, you do it here as well. It is not helpful. As for the issues being urgent or not: they are recurring, sometimes in rapid succession, sometimes dormant for a while. Fram (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment re: independent feedback You are involved. Both sides are. Both sides are writing the arguments. Everyone who is discussing this right now knows how everyone feels, and there is no value to hearing anything beyond what is contained in the RFC arguments above. Moreover, this RFC isn't going to lead to a sanction. It's going to get an independent opinion, which is what this discussion has sorely been lacking. You may not even respect that independent opinion, but at least it will give us some sense of the next step. I'm not sure why people are so afraid of a neutral process. There is literally no value to repeating the same lengthy back-and-forth in front of a frustrated and confused audience. We need a third-opinion, and at this point I hardly care what that third-opinion is so long as it can provide some closure to this issue, and give both sides a sense that they were heard. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a neutral process and it is only serving to further smear ARS as a "source of concern" and disrupt our work. Neutral opinions are well established that (i) Wikiprojects are certainly allowed to have neutral notifications of XfD and policy et al discussions, (ii) that canvassing is discouraged, (iii) that ARS never canvassed, recruited, enabled canvassing or encourages vote-staking, etc. In fact, evidence contradicts all those assertions. (iv) That civility issues are policy and trump guidelines, even if you believe someone is violating a guideline our policies mandate you act civilly to resolve the issues. That seems to have been missing here. (v) A strong record of ARS working to ensure neutrality in all our project space neither condeming or condoning inclusionism/deletionism and instead focussing on the clean-up work. (vi) No credible evidence of ARS violating any policies has been shown, ever. The likely result of any RfC is that ARS will grow in membership and effectiveness. It's happenned everytime someone has tried to delete the project or our template. I see this RfC attempt as more of the same and realistically this is how I would expect the RfC to go. Accusations galore refuted by factual evidence. Acknowledgement that all Wikiprojects should have the same standards of conduct; they aren't responsible for independent actions of members and all are responsible for their own edits. Some - rather minor - alleged canvassing incidents were blown waaay out of porportiom and, as always, ARS members sought constructive and neutral solutions to move forward regardless of the various agendas at play. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral opinions haven't said that ARS is merely another Wikiproject, that it's scope is about discussion rather than article improvement, or that the recent recruitment drive hasn't made ARS systemically more inclusionist. And this isn't about blame, this is about preventing polarized discussions. Even if you disagree, you have to concede that this disagreement is in good faith for us to be able to move forward. The only way the disagreement will be resolved is if an independent group of editors look at it. If it just descends into another battleground between ARS and its critics, no neutral perspective will be found, and we'll have to make further efforts at dispute resolution. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct but the fact remains we are a maintenance Wikiproject within the constructs of community standards working in a stressful area of Wikipedia. ARS is about rescuing content that is encyclopedic often by adding sourcing but sometimes just pointing out issues that may have been overlooked. It's not our job to fix everything but sometimes we do tremendous work in the regard. No one but a handfull of detractors is suggesting that ARS has leaned towards inclusionism and in fact ARS as a group has opposed efforts towards either inclusionism or deletionism. It's unhelpful and divisive, we just don't do it. Disagree completely with your assessment with how to resolve our critics' concerns. From my experience almost nothing but disbanding ARS will appease some of those concerns. The constructive criticism we try to absorb and act accordingly. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

 * What are the plans for presentation of evidence? Will it be limited to diffs in the argument statements? I realize that pointing out specific discussions as possibly influenced is likely to go over poorly. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If an RfC happens it will likely not need any diffs as much as a concerted effort to find neutral and constructive solutions. Dredging up past "examples" becomes pointy in and of itself. We already have policies and guidelines galore to help guide any discussions, no need to reinvent them. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that zero diffs will be needed: without any evidence, everything would be bald assertions of opinion. Even obviously false statements could not be refuted. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs are generally used to show how editor X behaved poorly. In theory we would demonstrating that sanctioning ARS in some way is needed to prevent harm to Wikipedia. Every past claim of harm has been considered and dimissed for lack of actual harm, likely because ARS members - like most Wikiprojects - act independently and are still subject to all other conduct policies. Ergo block voting, canvassing, empty vote etc etc concerns are addressed n a user level as should this entire thread. It's not a project level issue although we are doing reasonable and neutral preventative and proactive measures to address the stated and implied concerns. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs identify specific edits. A diff could show how editor X behaved correctly. I use diffs to provide context often and in all talk namespaces, so I disagree with your objection to them. Flatscan (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs can certainly be used constructively. In this case they wer rather pointy and unneeded. No one was questioning if an editor had done what was being stated, but the RfC concerned the Wikiproject so stronger diffs would show any organized effort to violate community protocols. If any if those exit they would be worth reviewing for substance. This is, after all, talking about doing, not an actual RfC or ANI report. Hopefully the most egregious behavioural issues are behind us and efforts to prevent further problems will prove effective.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason specifically to restrict anyone from commenting - after all, the summaries require some evidence or statements from both sides. This is also not about sanctioning ARS - I don't know where that impression comes from. It is about asking a question on which individuals here are not agreed, and getting some outside feedback. I don't see any of the proposals as being sanctions - and an RfC cannot make sanctions on any individual or group anyway: it acts in a purely advisory capacity. As to the issue of urgency, I don't really see the issues dying away in the medium term. The best remedies are those that prevent conflict, rather than waiting for a situation to develop again. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only "situation" is a non-neutral posting, so as long as there are not over-reactions again there really shouldn't be any recurrance. These RfCs are all about sanctioning ARS or singling us out among all other Wikiprojects as not being able to participate in XfD and policiy discussions et al. That's really all these are about and why they are fundamentally flawed and doomed to waste even more community energy. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given that I wrote them, I can only object that you are interpreting my intentions as negative with no basis for doing so. These are simply questions of scope - the fact that there are people here disagreeing (I have little opinion on the topic) suggests that it is best to settle the issues of scope.  I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but you misunderstand the purpose of a Request for Comment in this context.  Whilst an RfC on a User almost always is an effort to seek sanction (although neer able to, since RfC doesn't have that purpose) an RfC in this context is literally that.  I am confused - if the point is so obvious, then why worry about people dropping in to agree with you?  Talking about a "waste of time" is unhelpful, since there are obviously people who don't feel this is a waste.  Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An RfC is malformed if it's inherently against community consensus. If an RfC was started - shall Rugby Wikiproject be allowed to ignore notability guidelines and have independent threshold?' - it would be laughed away as ridiculous. Likewise any RfC suggesting that any Wikiproject be topic-banned from XfD, policy or other discussions is also preposterous. If you honestly feel Wikiprojects can't be notified of policies then do as has been suggested and seek support from the Wikiproject Council. i think you'll find vast similarities to what I'm suggesting - it won't happen, ergo more waste of community energy. This also completely is a red herringto the actual concerns that were non-neutral notifications, again, a user concern and Wikiprojects are not to be held responsible for members acting independently. Likewise those that edit-warred against them? we don't punish all detractors but try to resolve the issues and behaviours. RfC is unneeded for that. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support — This page has rolled-along far enough that the issue needs sorting at a higher level. Personally, I think this project is a solution in search of a problem. Sure, some folks here have improved articles, which is appreciated, but the coupling with AfD is inappropriate; it inherently has a confounding effect on those discussions. Editors intent on improving articles don't need an AfD or a rescue tag as motivation; just go improve something. There are, of course, other issues with the project and some involved with it. Jack Merridew 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. Some chose to only comment but in some way limiting those who are working to improve the article to meet stated concerns from !voting flies in the face of concensus. All are welcome to particpate. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article you put up for deletion is improved through this process by addressing your concerns and thus kept, you haven't lost. Rather, the encyclopedia has won. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it says somewhere that the goal is clean-up of notable content that's at AfD; something like that, at least. And I have no doubt that this is your goal. But your project has been hijacked by those who seek to indiscriminately keep content. I also believe this project is inherently seeking to set itself up as an obstacle to deletion; the problem with that is that while we do have a deletion policy, we don't have a rescue policy, which offers a WP:CREEP argument concerning this project. The legitimate goal of improving notable content can be achieved independent of the deletion process and should, across the board, occur prior to that last minute. Article issues are apparent from a reading of an article with a critical eye; the only things to be gleaned from an AfD discussion are individual interpretations of those issues by specific editors. This is merely a wikiproject, which are open to all, and as such has dificulty with members' disparate views of the project's and the 'pedia's goals. The issues here are not being resolved here, or at AN/I, and the proposal to seek the input of a wider group of people not previously involved in this is appropriate. Jack Merridew 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your POV and evidence actually counters that assertion. No hijacking has occurred despite the bad faith assumptions that it has. ARS was created to help address that AfD is abused and we have been effective at helping to rescue content if it actually wasn't a good candidate for AfD. Until AfD becomes much more rigorous at enforcing it's own instructions there will likely always be a need for ARS. Indeed people can do rescue work without our involvement and no one has suggested they can't; we are here to organize and assist those who are trying to clean up content and address noted deficiencies - policies on deletion and determining notability, etc are a natural extension of what we do. We are on the front lines dealing with many borderline cases. There is zero reasons the members here should be disinvited to discussing policies and decisions that impact the work we do. ARS members hold a wide variety of views and thoughtful discussion is welcome; disruption, edit-warring and incivility is not - those remain at the core of this thread. As stated above those who disagree with ARS may never be satisfied until they remove the project. If that is your goal you can expect opposition. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TLDR. Aren't there enough of these rambling talking shops already?  Just about every page connected with deletion or fiction seems to attract the usual suspects to go on and on at inordinate length but little useful purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do any of those things apply here? WP:CREEP is about not intoducing unnecessary rules, which this isn't - it's a feedback process.  WP:NOTFORUM is an aspect of OR - how is this original research?  And WP:TLDR isn't a reason not to discuss issues.  If the ARS members don't want to conduct an RfC, and want to isolate themselves from the community's opinion, they should let us know.  I am only here to try to help, and am baffled at the turnaround of views on the holding of an RfC from only a couple of days ago.  Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * " If the ARS members don't want to conduct an RfC, and want to isolate themselves from the community's opinion, they should let us know" that is a little unfair. Just because some members don't want to conduct a RFC does not necesarily mean we want to isolate ourselves from the community opinion.
 * WP:CREEP applies because it would be applying more rules on a wikiproject, were none existed before. The other acronyms I am unfamilar with. Ikip (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let's get the community's opinion. The community can't sanction anyone where no bad conduct is alleged. They'd be providing a neutral and independent opinion on a practice, and we'd decide how to deal with that practice based on that opinion, but it wouldn't mean anyone would get in trouble. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have the community opinion accross multiple XfDs and at AN, ANI and a very recent RfC about TfDs. This is simply prolonging arguments that are more caged as IDON'TLIKEIT on a project level. I'll add WP:Snow as being relative here as well. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CREEP is applicable in that the RfC seems intended to concern itself with developing rules of behaviour for this project. We don't need such rules - we have too many rules already and making rules is not our business per WP:NOTLAW which is policy .  This brings us to WP:NOTFORUM which clearly states that we should "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia."  The proposed RfC is not about creating the encyclopaedia - it's about developing rules.  So that's two policies we'd be breaking.  As for WP:TLDR, other ways of putting it are "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" and "don't get me started!".  We should not suppose that the RfC would be one-way traffic or a brief exchange of pleasantries.  It would, of course, be an interminable back-and-forth which would do nothing to improve our tempers or, more importantly, the encyclopaedia.  To summarise, thanks but no thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have an interminable back-and-forth. If one side -- any side -- tries to unilaterally decide what's appropriate, then this will continue to be an interminable back-and-forth. Getting an independent set of editors to look at the situation and sign off on it would at least give us a third-opinion, and maybe allow us to settle this once and for all. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, that's already happened. ARS is still here and those who don't like it may never be won over. That's no reason to be disruptive and that's the concern now. We have been under attack for three months and it's unfair to this project and will be the source of a new admin concern if it continues. Personally I have better things to do then start threads there. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close and archive entire thread
Now clocking in at 191 kilobytes - roughly two thirds of the entire page - ARS critics have demonstrated that no RfC is needed because indeed piles of discussion has taken place that only affirms that ARS has been accused of canvassing and recruiting inclusionists with evidence showing that ARS has done neither and has, in fact, worked to address each concern in turn. The recruitement issue was with a single editor acting independently - they were cleared of accusations at admin boards and in response ARS created a neutral invite template. The canvassing issues remain centered on some non-neutral notifications placed on the projects talkpage which were then deleted and re-added instead of following civility protocals. This was unfortunate but as a direct result a recently closed RfC affirmed ARS certainly could be involved at TfD and likely other XfD discussions. This thread has centered on can Wikiprojects be notified of XfD and policy discussions with the answer being "yes, they should be neutral though". Various folks have posited ARS create a special process or policing force to ensure no non-neutral posts are placed here. This is counter to existing policies on civility and canvassing. Instead we work with any of those editors, assuming they mean well, to refactor or otherwise neutralizing their notice to mitigate POV if we actually think it's that big of deal. In any case there is no reason to be disagreeable even when there is differing opinions. ARS has consistently shown creativity and adaptibility to address concerns and many of our ideas have helped improve Wikipedia in additon to actually rescuing articles. ARS still remains neutral and still welcomes self-identified deletionists and inclusionists committed to improving the encyclopedia. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. Perhaps well intended but another ARS RfC is unhelpful and these are user issues that every Wikiproject must address. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with a really special thanks to Fritzpoll for his efforts to be a neutral mediator. Ikip (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support closure of a process that has distracted so many editors from both "sides" of the discussion away from efforts to improve the project. We all have so many better things to do here . Really.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NOTFORUM. This activity is too remote from our task of improving the encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per above FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but Banj, your position is "This is a maintenance Wikiproject that is completely capable of policing itself in the unlikely case that that is necessary, and capable of defining its own scope. The concerns that recruiting for this project has been aimed specifically are inclusionists are silly given the unilateral and ineffectual nature of that campaigning, and the few outright attempts to recruit favorable editors on this talk page have been ineffectual and politely rebuffed by project members." Every single person in this discussion is aware that this is your position. Please either carefully consider whether your lengthy replies and motions to close add any new insight to anyone who is already familiar with your position and refrain from commenting when no such insight exists, or stop complaining about the length of this talk page. Sheesh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to address the many oft repeated accusations and innacuracies as thoughtfully as possible - practicing what I preach as it were. If my comments are lengthy it's to try to wind down irrelevant material that is perpetuating the issues rather than actually addressing solutions. And no I don't agree with your assessment and I think you're aware of that. I also think that if you really want to discuss this please visit my talkpage so we can keep our theoretical discussions and disagreements off a Wikiproject page unless we find some solution that may actually benefit the work here. That same invite extends to any editor. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've also opened individual sections to move to close each section, as well as a separate section to move to close the whole proposed RFC before it is even presented to anyone else. I would suspect that at least a tenth of the text in this section is signed Banjeboi, and that is a conservative estimate. Either say your point briefly and trust that people will see it, or don't complain about the length. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The individual sections were nommed seperately as I hoped to help focus on any that were actually promising. None seemed to be unfortunately. That's not to say that the points were invalid. Just as I opposed opening an RfC on your behaviours here I don't see any of these as project issues as much as individual editors' behavioural issues; as such they need to be addressed on that level appropriately. Our entire page is 336k overall, this thread in now 216k which is about two thirds and this shows little promise of appeasing ARS critics' concerns, some which may never be appeased, and other efforts to address the stated concerns have already been enacted and others in process. This is very much the same trajectory ARS has always taken; absorb the criticism and try to resolve constructive criticism appropriately. This is what one would hope would happen. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as we really need to return focus on rescuing articles. I can think of plenty of articles that need rescue and I sure would appreciate the help.  Thanks!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is saddening to me that I am now viewed as a critic despite the support for these issues only a few days ago, and that the simple asking of questions is considered criticism. I am afraid that, ultimately, an RfC will be held on these matters and more since this is essentially a closedown by what is perceived to be one side of these debates that will satisfy noone i the long term - but ARS will be less in control of its content and direction if one is opened externally. Nonetheless, I wish those members now supporting closure of this had mentioned this opinion earlier and saved us all this time. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh??  Your intervention was most appreciated Fritzpoll,  per Ikips comment above.  And at the time an RFS looked a good idea, at least to me.  Its just several of us now  feel  that the 1 or 2  who  needed the original criticism have taken it on board.  One of those two being me  -I hadnt openly pushed for it but privately I was hoping that ARS might one day have an input into making Policy,  as until policy becomes more inclusion friendly many good articles are inevitably going to be lost .  But its now very clear to me I was misguided on that one.   Both ARS veterans and respected inclusion minded  editors like Uncle G clearly feel  ARS should stick closely to its remit and not do anything else that risks creating conflict with other sections of the community.  And I dont see there being a single person thats not accepting that now its been spelled out.   If there was an RFC what current issue is there for it to address? I dont see a single tangible issue we haven't conceded on.    Bilateral Relations was until recently an area of conflict, but Ikip's gone to great lengths to alleviate concerns on that, and according to one person who wanted to heavily reduce the number of BR articles IKIPs solution is exactly what he wanted.     What more do folk want?  An  abject apology?  I dont think either side should have to apologise – as far as I can tell most everyone was acting in good faith , just from different perspectives.    So is there any reason why we cant draw a line under this, as a lesson learned? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is really the reasoning, then there is no issue - but that's not how it reads from the motion to close and the previous comments by the proposer. If there is no issue, then there's no need,  but I'd be happier if that were clear from editors on both sides of the original dispute Fritzpoll (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't fully agree with FeydHuxtable assessment. I think the RfC was just a unconstructive and possible disruptive idea as rather entrenched ideas which allude but don't address the core issues which would be innapropriate for a project RfC. The core problems were civility and behavioural ones that are handled civilly on a user level. Two of the key editors have come around a bit to see that maybe lines were crossed and it didn't help much. The RfC proposals all seemed to suggest that ARS as a group be sanctioned in various ways although the problems seemed centered not at the project level but at the user level, and isolated, generally speaking. Restricting Wikiprojects in any way from even getting neutral notices? That actually would be setting a rather troubling precedent and I don't see that doing anything but stirring up heated exchanges. Some of ARS' critics concerns will never be resolved unless the project is wiped out - that doesn't seem to be on the table here. What remains then is systematically ensuring our project remains neutral and finds way to address the concerns that are reasonable - like empty !votes - and do so benefitting all concerned. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You see sanctions where I see requests for comment. You see all these issues from the perspective of holding the very views of the ARS that are part of the dispute.  You see me as being disruptive when many editors at the beginning of this process saw it as a helpful attempt.  Fine - that's your perogative.  I will not post on this board again on this subject. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Related to dismissal of any problems, there is an ongoing effort to revert war "Article Rescue Squadron is no different from any of the hundreds of wikiprojects, except for its scope" into the FAQ of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two threads to address this have been started below. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close and archive motions to close and archive this thread and its subthreads
Could we please stop moving to close every single section and subsection of this? It's rather hard to have new input on anything when the old input is repeated ad nauseum.

Anyone who votes "support" or "oppose" below this will be lit on fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)