Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 38

Article Rescue Squadron

 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)
 * Please join us! All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please join us! All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD vs hatnotes
Since the hatnote is part of the project, rather than directing to unrelated pages, I think anyone interested in the hatnote would be interested in the MfD. As such I feel the MfD should be above the hatnote. Taemyr (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, right; I was reverted when I fixed it. I'm not going to fuss over it, but will note that it highlights the insular attitude that very much a part of the issue here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a MOS issue; hatnotes go on top. They are there to serve our readers - in this case to direct someone whose looking for two different areas but is not familiar enough to know the right place to look. The MfD tag is quite prominently displayed so no one will be missing it. And no, many editors are completely uninterested in XfD's of all sorts but are pulled into them when an item is tagged for deletion. ARS serves, in part, as not just a help to newby editors but those new to XfD. If they are here because an item they care about has been tagged for deletion they are looking to sort out how ARS can help on that item. I'm sorry you feel my intent was anything other than that. -- Banj e  b oi   00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comics storylines (3 articles on one AfD)
Anyone able to fix up any of the three articles related to Spider-Man storylines currently up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt? Naturally, piling on Keep votes isn't what's needed so much as any links to interviews, or other things like that which would help the most. BOZ (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it's rescuable then add the rescue template to each of the three articles on the AfD that you think can be rescued. As for sourcing I recommend looking to related Wikiprojects for leads on where to find sourcing. Many ARS folks won't see this post here as the talkpage has been "exciting" lately. If you add the tag it will be added to the main list. -- Banj e  b oi   00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I already commented on them earlier. All those nominated were published also as hardcover novels.  They all got plenty of reviews in many places.  Saving these articles won't be difficult at all.  IGN reviews for all of them, are already there, and one of them has references to other third party media reviews also.   D r e a m Focus  00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can provide some links to the reviews/interviews, that should help. These AFDs were handled very strangely. Flashbacks has a separate AFD all to itself. Kraven's First Hunt lists two more articles besides these, but neither are tagged for AFD, so as I understand it those two are not technically subject to deletion since the articles themselves are not tagged. BOZ (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you checked the article history, they were tagged, but then the guy said he'd nominate them separately. I added some interview links.  All of these were done by the same team, who put them out at an insane pace, and they got huge applause from fans for being so well done, and plenty of write-ups.   D r e a m Focus  04:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to end edit-warring of including "policy notification statement" to ARS' FAQ
The following was removed from ARS' FAQ by an editor who has a history of objections to ARS:


 * 1) How can I get ARS to help win my policy discussion?
 * First off, like articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification like "There is a discussion about foo at _____." Avoid the appearance of telling anyone how to think of the discussion - you are inviting people to participate, not to think or vote a certain way. See WP:Canvassing for clarification on this.

Any constructive suggestions to wording changes welcome otherwise I'd like to re-add as it has indeed been a source of disruption so spelling out clearly and neutrally that policy discussion notifications need to be neutral seems appropriate. -- Banj e b oi   00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the objectionable text, and describing people as having "a history of objections to ARS" is ridiculous poisoning the well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that this is a question that is in any sense "frequently asked", unless it is a question that editors are asking each other via e-mail. I've never seen it asked on this page. pablo hablo. 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this is a modification of my original posting, which was completly deleted by AMIB. one of the three 3RRs in the past 11 days.
 * AMIB is starting his fourth edit war by deleting the FAQ tag. At least AMIB has not deleted the FAQ page entirely yet, with no consensus before hand, as AMIBhas with other ARS subpages he didn't like before.
 * "a history of objections to ARS" WP:SPADE Ikip (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And one of your two 3RRs in the last three days. And I could point out that you have a history of canvassing for favorable editors here and elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I only had 2RRs.
 * I think we are discussing reversions of this template. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AMIB, if you descibe the text is "not objectionable", why did you persist in deleting it and related content? Hoping this is not the case, edit summaries such as THIS might be perceived as edit warring and an assumption of bad faith. Let's discuss.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A Man In Black that is the text you deleted. If you don't object to it then we can re-add it without further rehashing? Pablomismo, again this is a preventative measure to address the stated concerns that non-neutral notifications are an issue. This is a constructive solution to a problem that has been stated as a concern. If it's an easy solution then it would seem to be logical to try it. -- Banj e  b oi   00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still junk. Nobody has asked this question, and the answer is lifted directly from pro #4 above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't lift it from anywhere, FWIW, and don't appreciate it being dismissed as "junk". Again, this seems to directly address a stated concern so clearly helping prevent future occurences would seem to be a win-win situation. -- Banj e  b oi   01:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is junk. It doesn't address a stated concern; it encourages people to do something that has been repeatedly questioned here. No, you really shouldn't be putting any notice of a policy discussion here; there are lots of noticeboards for them and this isn't one of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point completely. Any Wikiproject can, and many are, notified of policy discussions; if you feel that should not happen then you need to address that on a system-wide basis - that no Wikiprojects can be notified of any policy discussions, no matter if it's neutral or not. Until then ARS will be treated like every other project. Your disdain for this project is well documented but finding new ways to vex us is only causing more emnity and casting further doubts on the wisdom of your participating here. You've had som ereasonable insights but coupled with the behavioural issues you're tap-dancing beyond the patience of this project. -- Banj e  b oi   10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no divine right of notification. You let a Wikiproject know about a policy discussion when it's relevant. Thing is, this project explicitly excludes policy from its scope.
 * As for the rest, your disdain for anyone even remotely critical of this project is well documented but going off-topic to attack people instead of issues in order to vex them is only causing more emnity and casting further doubts on the wisdom of your participation here. You've had some reasonable insights, but coupled with the behavioral issues, you're tap-dancing beyond the patience of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A Man In Black, please refrain from this antagonism. Your wishes for how others should conduct themselves don't seem to be supported by community standards. Likewise your own behaviours are increasingly violating the civility policies that have been set by the community. In response to this specific idea - that ARS in any way excludes policy - you may need to re-read the one sentence that states anything about policy. The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. This doesn't even imply that we exclude policy, if fact it implies that we concern ourselves with policy but not to ensure that nothing is deleted. You can try to trun that any way you wish but the meaning is inferred explicitly - we don't try to bend policy to prevent deletion. -- Banj e  b oi   02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What interest does this project have in policy, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Policies that affect any Wikiprojects work would naturally be of interest to them. I'm really not interested in further engaging you on this so I hope that's clear enough. -- Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Policies such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any policy that affects this Wikiproject would naturally be of interest to it's members. -- <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   23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand. "junk" "cruft" "nuke and pave"
 * First, how do you think editors feel when you and others describe their contributions as "junk"?
 * Second, is a "nuke and pave" attitude towards editors' contributions compatible with rescuing articles? Ikip (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a real problem staying on topic. If you were here for something other than stirring up fights, you'd address what I was saying, instead of how I said it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not the person who has deleted other editors pages, or had three 3rr in the past 11 days, I have never called you a troll here. So accusing me of stirring up a fight seems like WP:KETTLE, and much more. You are after all, calling the editors contributions "junk". Were you expecting a positive reaction? Ikip (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I eagerly await your defense of the utility of this topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AMIB I eagerly await you starting to act like an adminsitrator is expected too. Don't demand editors to act a certain way when your edit history here and beyond shows that you have been less than civil and cooperative on numerous occasions.
 * Civilized discussions don't magically develop when one editor is calling other editors' contributions "junk", starting three 3rrs in the past 3 days, deleting editors pages, etc., etc. 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I eagerly await your defense of the utility of this topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's get back "on topic". I do not myself see the text you wish deleted as "junk", as there have been reams of discussion above on this page about how some see ARS as some sort of "cabal with a mission" (not a direct quote, just an impression), and the questioned text answers a cogent question newer editors might have if they think to join ARS specifically because they beleive or wish we have some sort of trick other than hard work that saves articles. You are an experienced editor, certainly, but that FAQ is for the uninitiated, as they might have expectations that are not realistic.
 * When they ask "'How can I get ARS to help win my policy discussion?" The answer of course is that they cannot "get" ARS to help them "win" anything, as this is not a contest. They are encouraged to improve their articles, get them properly sourced per guideline, and then hope that work is seen in a positive light at an AfD if it goes there. The FAQ answer
 * "First off, like articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification like "There is a discussion about foo at _____." Avoid the appearance of telling anyone how to think of the discussion - you are inviting people to participate, not to think or vote a certain way. See WP:Canvassing for clarification on this"
 * addresses a valid concern that should be addressed, and advises that neutral notification seeking input are allowed. The FAQ answer might benefit from tweaking, but educating newcomers in the proper ways to improve the project is of benefit TO the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then address that specifically. Tell people who are here on a mission to go elsewhere. Don't tell them to temper their message, to advertise less obnoxiously. If you are here to do something other than improve articles, then go away. There's doubtless a more diplomatic way to suggest that, but bottom line this is not a general-purpose deletion noticeboard. Politely misusing this project is less problematic but still problematic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, if "This is the place to work on improving articles which are up for deletion, other business goes elsewhere" were quietly and effectively enforced, I suspect the RFC above goes away. I go back to having quiet qualms about the rescue/ARS/Tagged mechanism as a whole without having any argument sufficient to convince even myself, Ikip finds a new cause to champion (and he's got at least one more productive one on his plate), and this whole project runs a lot more smoothly. It'd just need to go smoothly and efficiently enough to keep anyone from rising to righteous defense of anyone or anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are well known however it's helpful that you remind us this is an ongoing issue of hounding Ikip. This Wikiproject is not going to cave into your intimidation and your disruption here needs to end immediately. Whatever you had to say has been repeatedly stated, responded to and in most cases refuted. Your continued presence is now disrupting us from moving forward. Time spent addressing the valid concerns is instead being spent to entertain your circular and somewhat mistaken concepts on what Wikiprojects do and how they conduct themselves. -- <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   05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone give me a cookie when an ARS member actually answers the substance of a post here rather than dismissing it as 1) vindictive 2) a personal attack 3) disruptive?
 * No seriously, I don't get why you don't make any of these changes that are being suggested. I'm rather distressed to peak here from finals hell and find that discussion of my suggestions (which were supported by Masem and PhilKnight, two users known for being even-minded and fair) was arbitrarily archived by you. If you care about the goal of this project—saving articles, which again, no one here has any objection to—I don't see why taking the steps being suggested is difficult at all. Swear off anything remotely to do with policy discussions, have people who work on rescuing an article recuse themselves from the article's AfD (after noting they made improvements), and appoint coordinators to enforce this. It's startling that so many former ARS members say that the current course of the project is blatantly wrong and that the current members apparently don't care. None of these means you can't go and argue against evil deletionists on X policy discussion; all it means is restoring this project to its original aims as a nonpartisan group. You have people here bitching about problems because there are problems, not because they're all random blokes who have a beef to pick with the ARS. Again, that so many members of the ARS that were around when it was founded have a problem with the ARS' current course is indicative of a problem. Fix it. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 07:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth, I don't think anyone takes you seriously. You are a delitionists, someone who mindlessly tries to destroy things you don't like for whatever reason.  Why are you even on this page?  You naively believe you are helping the wikipedia by deleting articles that some would find interesting, which aren't hurting anyone by existing, and which no one would find unless they were searching for them to begin with.  That sort of mentality is not compatible with what we are trying to do here.    D r e a m Focus  22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is extremely disappointing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is? My pointing out that we wouldn't have to work so hard to save articles, if people like him weren't trying so hard to destroy them, and to prevent a change in the guidelines that would be fair and reasonable, to avoid most of the AFD altogether?  He doesn't like episode or character pages, and votes to keep the guidelines from supporting their existence, and I've seen him in enough AFD in the manga/anime section to know he votes to delete them whenever he is around to participate.   D r e a m Focus  22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone takes you seriously with your half-assed personal attacks that display a profound ignorance to Wikipedia's workings and a complete inability to listen to reason. Hell, you've spelled "deletionist" wrong every time the same way from the start even though it's been used in discussion liberally. Trying to accuse me of not caring about "episode or character" pages is so laughable it's not even funny. I dunno, thirty-four featured episode lists and ten good character articles must indicate that I want to rid Wikipedia of all of them and hate them. Please. Take the personal attacks elsewhere if you can't even bother to bungle every fact in the book on the way. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 05:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth; (i) Some changes have already been made and others are in process; a few ideas have been on hold for weeks because this talkpage was turned into a battleground. Hopefully that will end. (ii) No good ideas, no matter where they come from have been rejected outright; in fact, this project has a long history of readily adapting to new processes when they made sense. (iii) Notifications of policy and other discussions that impact this Wikiproject, just as with all other Wikiprojects, are welcome. The only issue is that they need to be neutral. If they aren't that needs to be addressed civilly per policy. (iv) having editors who work on rescuing content be recused from XfD discussion, in any way, is a really bad idea. First off you can't always tell; secondly these are the very people who are investing their energy to assess how it fits into Wikipedia's current scheme and if it meets criteria and sourcing and notability. Generally these editors are more dispassionate about the subject and are more likely to merge, stub, redirect,send to list article etc., if something serves our readers better in that regard. (v) No one but our critics have posited that we should elect some sort of ARS enforcer, it really sets up power structure to only serve as some sort of behavioural officer. The idea has been considered and there doesn't seem much support for it. Instead ideas are being worked on to address the actual problems like the proposal for surveying AfDs and contacting those who cast empty !votes. (vi) The current members certainly do care as is evidenced by the many changes and thoughtful discussion that has taken place despite the level of enmity. (vii) As far as I can tell this project has remained nonpartisan and any veering into POV territory is quickly addressed to help mitigate perceptions otherwise - within reason of course. Some critics will never be placated and we have to respect they simply hold a view that rescuing content is flawed in some way. Constructive suggestions, hopefully presented civilly, are always welcome. -- <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   23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (i) What changes? I've seen mass archiving of discussions by you without any real attempt to address the substance of any of the arguments brought up. People are being dismissed out of hand right and left without any acknowledgment of their arguments or promises to bring them up in the future.
 * (ii) Uh, no. See (i).
 * (iii) That impact the WikiProject, yes. That are notability policy discussions and similar are not relevant to this at all and should be sworn off.
 * (iv) Uh, you've invited about 300+ inclusionists into the project (Ikip has, namely). One person improves an AfD and then we have the ARS bandwagon with "keep per improvements". AfD !voters have brains. If a rescuer improves an article, he is welcome to post a comment on the AfD saying he has improved the article and then inform all present !voters on their talk pages to revisit the article. Closing admins have brains too and take improvements into account. Again, whether you like it or not, the ARS had a reputation as a hodgepodge of inclusionist bandwagoners. Getting that perception thrown out the door is part of why these suggestions are being brought forth.
 * (v) A coordinator isn't an "enforcer." He or she would have no authority of any sort to kick people out of the ARS or censure them, but it should be their job to bring forth violations to the ARS as a whole or to the community as a whole to be addressed. And in any case, that "doesn't seem much support for it" is due to you archiving the whole discussion prematurely. That you don't see that there are problems that need addressing, especially after so many former ARS members have brought forth their grievances is astounding.
 * (vi) Not seeing a whole lot of effort to address anything.
 * (vii) Uh, no. Inviting 300+ inclusionists doesn't make this project "nonpartisan" in any fashion whatsoever and it certainly hasn't acted as such in the past.
 * This is increasingly getting nowhere, but I'm still perplexed why the suggestion to make it ARS policy to indicate that "If you don't improve articles, go away" as AMiB as noted above (perhaps a bit more diplomatically though) is dismissed as well. If you truly are a nonpartisan project, then you shouldn't care about policy discussions, notability in general, or any other policy wank material that have become battlegrounds. The more you distance yourself from these conflicts, the less critics you are going to draw. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 05:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. If your interested in seeing the changes you could start by looking up, we added the centralized discussion template so those who are interested in the ones already listed are less likely to need a reminder; we also added a FAQ to address the stated concerns, archiving has been modified to wait a week to archive stale threads that are no longer needed unless the item is resolved or a concensus to archive is reached. Every civil, and many of the non-civil comments have been or are being considered, luckily we don't operate here by bullying one another - we try to work with each other even if we disagree. Notifications of policy and other discussions that impact this Wikiproject, just as with all other Wikiprojects, are welcome. The only issue is that they need to be neutral. The invitations, which are hardly exclusive to this Wikiproject, have had no demonstartable effect on anything as of yet. If that changes we can then address any perceieved harm. Meanwhile we actively work to avoid partisanship. No one has really seema need to do anything but follow our current civility policies when addressing perceived issues. If you feel something is amiss you're welcome to message myself if you feel unable to neutrally address the situation yourself. As far as I can tell this project has remained nonpartisan and any veering into POV territory is quickly addressed to help mitigate perceptions otherwise - within reason of course. Suggesting we mindlessly ignore the very discussions that all Wikipedians are encouraged to participate - that indeed impact our work seems like a terrible idea, likely why it's been rejected. Again neutral notifications to any Wikiproject are fine. Thus this item in the ARS FAQ, to help point out that such notices need to be 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   02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)