Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 42

Please review User:Bonewah
Please review | Bonewah's contributions. He has been using Friendly to add many notability, refimprove, etc templates (which is OK -- I haven't actually checked those articles) but he is also WP:PRODing and proposing speedy deletions, most of which are being overturned. Occasionally he is then offerring the articles up for AfD where there are Speedy Keep !votes.

It does seem to be that he's doing it in good faith, and I haven't approached him on his talk page, so this is just a head's up. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a behavioural issue with a user, the correct venue is their talkpage - please notify them of this discussion immediately Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this issue has anything to do with the ARS. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template

 * [[Image:Life_Preserver.svg|20px]] This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. Arsman

is an inline template just created that I believe has quite similar issues as the two above. I have removed it from the project page until we have consensus to add it on a project level. To me this is a good example of why all three are unneeded. The whole point is to note someimprovements have been made - ''Comment. This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.'' does that and no template is needed. By inviting editors on our project page to use this implies ARS endorses this use so as a group we should clarify if we do or do not. Being named "AFD Rescue" also implies our endorsement as does our iconic life preserver image. For those wishing to endorse using this I encourage you to consider the following:

The significant improvements do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and sources policies.

AfD is a discussion so I wouldn't support going down this road. If we do think it's a good idea then I think we also need to get consensus from WP:AFD that this would be acceptable. -- Banj e b oi   04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. All contributions to an article at AfD need to be considered on their own merits. All these templates seem to imply that the efforts of ARS members have more authority and more legitimacy than those of other editors. pablo hablo. 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A one-line indication that significant improvements have been made seems quite helpful and an icon is a good eye-catching way of summarising this point. The lifebuoy icon seems quite satisfactory for this purpose and I shall try using it myself, following the good example of other editors.   It seems a better way of making the point than WP:HEY, which has always seemed  a quite baffling usage, contrary to WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - a one line indication that improvements have been made is helpful, and such have often been added to AfDs. Introducing icons gives too much weight to such a comment, and paves the way for discussions such as this:
 * [[Image:Life_Preserver.svg|20px]] This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. Arsman


 * Edit-cut.svg The significant improvements do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and sources policies. Captain Source
 * Nuvola apps core.png Delete with prejudice. Complete cruft. Mr. Standardz
 * Nuvola apps core.png Delete with prejudice. Complete cruft. Mr. Standardz


 * Nuvola apps package toys.png Keep - not doing any harm, plenty of space on the servers. catfan101010


 * Nuvola apps konquest.png Nuke from outer space per Mr. Standardz. spaceboi


 * Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Delete per nom. VoteyMcVoter


 * Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Newsdawg


 * – it is just a visual distraction, adding nothing to the discussion but screen clutter. pablo hablo. 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Minus the images, we already get WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM style of non-arguments and yes, I have seen "nuke from space, lol" or "kill with FIRE!!" as "rationales" as well. :(  I find AfDs about the most embarassing aspect of Wikipedia, much more so than poorly written articles, because of the lack of seriousness and immaturity by participants in many AfDs added to the lack of knowledge concerning the subjects under discussion.  Heck, I have even seen accounts outright admit they do not know anything about the topic under discussion!  You know, actually, I have seen checkmarks and Xs in some AfDs in the past.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping illustrate where this will very likely lead. These kind of comments have long occurred on AfD and look a lot like:


 * Comment. Article has been rewritten. -- Banj e  b oi   20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll note this is presented NPOV and all regular AfD editors will have little confusion what this means. What this means to the overall discussion is a timestamped benchmark for prior-to and post-change discussion to be veiwed by all and especially the closer. Those who amend their !votes may change them or state "the improvements made do not sway my opinion", etc. If after such a comment all the !votes are keep, or at least not delete that also has a bearing on the overall impact the discussion has had. Regardless we have to avoid implying that ARS is the authority on this and that discussion is in any moot because the issues have been resolved. Indeed if I see notes like that what need is there for me to !vote, improve or even look at the article? We want to aid the discussion not impede anyone's involvement, especially newer users unfamiliar with AfD.  -- Banj e  b oi   20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, the goal is to get users to take a second look. This could be users who previously commented, or new users (new to the AfD) who might feel peer pressure to just agree with the current way the !vote is going.  This template removes the peer pressure by saying that you aren't necessarily disagreeing with these people you respect, since they might have looked at an entirely different article. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I commonly place a bullet at the start of my comments to punctuate them. Numerous editors have gratuitous graphics in their sigs.  As long as graphics are not bulky, like the giant trout one occasionally sees, then they are fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no editor should have a graphic in their signature, if you spot any, please point this out to them.
 * Actually, reasons for not using an image in a signature include:
 * they are potentially distracting from the actual message
 * images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution
 * Icons in AfD discussions would do the same. pablo hablo. 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a thin red line at the start of your signature. This graphic and the other bulky formatting markups in your signature have less utility than the suggested graphics above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a graphic, it's a border. Cheers, Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg 06:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Signatures are one thing, this is a different issue. ARS does not copyright the life-preserver but at AFD it's arguably emblematic of our project which does not take any official position to declare an article is now considered rescued. I think that is problematic for many reasons as previously outlined. This would also seem to be the start of a slippery slope as Pablomismo has shown above where comments are decorated. trout is one of the few, possibly only, exceptions and generally is employed only in egregious cases unlikely to change anything. I've certainly used it myself. Even if we endorse the use here I still think we need to get approval at WP:AFD which seems unlikely IMHO. -- Banj e  b oi   23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an official-looking declaration of a debatable evaluative claim. By violating the usual AFD norm of not adding images to comments, it appears to be more than just a comment. Is it a good idea to be making official-looking templates for typical AFD comments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just created this template as a useful way to let editors know that the article has changed in a big way, and that some of the earlier concerns may have been addressed. I kept it very low key so that it wouldn't disrupt the discussion.  If anything, this comment may cause an article to be more likely to be deleted, if the discussion still leans toward delete even after the template.   I think we could make it even more neutral by changing it to "significantly changed".  I'm going to go do that now. Gigs (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to just replace it with a comment to that effect? I don't see the need for the big obtrusive box, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What big intrusive box? This template is very unobtrusive:


 * [[Image:Life_Preserver.svg|20px]] This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. Arsman

If an article has been improved then I would recommend contacting those who have already commented at the AfD and invite them to reconsider their vote. I tend to keep track of ones I've voted on for a bit of time but not always to the end of the debate. I can't see what use a banner would be, as it is already pretty much always stated in the debate if an article has been improved. Quantpole (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As above, it isn't a banner, it's a single line of text with a tiny icon. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it's not a banner, quite right. I wasn't really complaining about the size though. I just don't see the point in it, as people normally say if it has been improved, and a personal touch is always better. Quantpole (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to compalin about the big mbox style template I've seen at a couple articles, but it looks like that's being addressed at WP:TFD. I do like the idea of making a note in the AFD discussion when an article is picked up by WP:ARS. I'd favor a deletion sorting-esque small text notice, no icons or anything like that, added to the discussion at the same time the article is templated for rescue. It serves the purpose of giving closing admins and discussion participants alike a heads-up of possible article improvement, without being overly flashy. I'm not so sure that any "article has been improved" template is needed; that sort of message can be better delivered with a comment in the AFD detailing what sorts of changes have been made. Hi DrNick ! 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they all should go and, if needed, two messages could be employed - both formatted similar to ____ Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion which is widely used and accepted. (i) That the article has been tagged for rescue, only to note when that occurs - I'm not convinced this will do any good but if done similar to other non-intrusive notifications doesn't seem to hurt. And (ii) a note when articles has been expanded, rewritten, overhauled, etc.; this is only to serve as a benchmark / timestamp of sorts but cannot but worded to present that something has been fixed or that all concerns have been met. The first of these concerns ARS and could be an official template but without icons or other decorative bits. The second has been done for at least two years that I'm aware of and certainly will continue and needs no template or ARS involvement. IMHO, all the rest should be discontinued and removed as likely to cause more problems whether intended or not. -- Banj e  b oi   20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That mostly sound reasonable to me as well. I do disagree with one thing: Both messages should be a template and not a regular comment.  People should be able to quickly recognize a standard notation that the article has been nominated for rescue, and that it has changed in a significant way.  No, we don't "need" to make either a template, but if you use that argument, we never need to make anything a template.  All informational templates ever are is a consistent way to communicate a common thing, that people can quickly recognize.  I don't mind dropping the image and making it small to follow convention, however. Gigs (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To wit:
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (link optional if that's controversial)
 * Note: This article has significantly changed since its nomination for deletion. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These seem fine by me, the link is fine. The first should be a part of the ARS project and named similar to the others out there possible reworked to fit in with Template:Delsort. The second needs to have a neutral name but in theory seems fine as well. Thank you for drafting these. -- Banj e  b oi   22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Banjeboi and Gigs - brilliant solution. Informative, succinct, and not intrusive. Thank you. Fences and windows (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ The new templates are done: for the nomination and  for the change notice. Subst below:
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For about five years now, I've been using the simple and straightforward convention of a horizontal rule to denote the point in the discussion chronology where the rewrite happened, with an ordinary bulleted, signed, contribution noting the rewrite beneath it. Of late, I've taken to omitting the note, using just the horizontal rule (example), in part because "Uncle G'ed" was becoming a verb. (Mind you, I've coined similar words myself, such as "Capitalistroadsterization".) Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have we got consensus to add these to the ARS guidelines? I support doing that. Fences and windows (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection, probably won't use them myself, but the icon-free neutral templates are fine. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked them both so they should be subst and automatically add signatures. The Afdrescued one needs to be renamed to disassociate from ARS and also to stay NPOV. Afdimproved? -- <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   11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already been moved to Template:Afdchanged, and I see no need to delete the redirect. If you want to, you can. Gigs (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. This seems resolved then? -- <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   23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we are done here. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC
There is an RfC underway that proposes to amend CSD to allow for greater use of administrative judgment. There was a (long) discussion at the CSD talk page that led to the RfC. <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b> 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: demand WP:BEFORE
I think we should require that people listen to WP:BEFORE before listing articles for deletion. I find any attempt to start an AFD without adequate discussion on the article talk page to be an uncivil end-run about working towards consensus. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While this makes sense, there are problems with it as a “demand”. Editors sometimes propose articles for deletion in good faith, having either missed or misunderstood the criteria for deletion. I have seen inept Google searches both by proposers and defenders of articles, yet we must assume that these are good-faith mistakes or oversights. Also - if it is a “demand”, presumably there is some kind of censure/punishment for non-compliance? What did you have in mind? pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you are intending to propose something along this line, you need to do it in a more visible place, probably the Village Pump. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, Biaswarrior is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did think it odd (but not impossible) that he was here, asking this, on his 37th edit! However I suppose we can still see if anyone wants to discuss it. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this is digressing somewhat, but I'd be willing to join a voluntary group that required it's members to comply with a code of good practice, such as complying with WP:BEFORE, not removing a prod without first rescuing the article, and not merging articles without first holding a discussion, and so on. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we also require that nobody can deprod an article without improving it, nobody can list a DRV without first exhausting all discussion with the deleting admin, and canvassing to keep articles at AFD is properly sanctioned? Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Improvement is the opposite of deletion"
I've removed this sentence from the main page, it doesn't really make sense. Improvement is not the opposite of deletion, neither are the two mutually exclusive. I could write a bad article about my next-door neighbour and then improve it over the course of many years, but it still won't be on an encyclopaedic topic, and it would not deserve to be in Wikipedia. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 09:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The project is often improved by deletions. Good removal. Verbal   chat  09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! Aren't we all - how zen! -- <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   10:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Logically you're totally correct Pablo and Verbal. However successful project statements pretty much never limit themselves to the cold sterility of legalistic writing.  Rhetorical flourishes are useful in communicating the essential character of our noble undertaking.  Rest assured any project members who come to belief that even attack pages and clear cases of spam ought not be deleted will soon be put right.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not merely a "rhetorical flourish". It is a misleading statement which could lead users to believe that any improvement to an article is proof against deletion. "Legality" has nothing to do with it. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 12:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets look at the line in context. but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion.
 * The section I've bolded is without doubt rhetorical, setting the tone for the rest of the passage. The words I've put in italics already removes the likely of readers being misleaded. Taken as a whole the good writing that seems to me to capture our philosophy very well, so i object to your deleting the line. One of the characteristics of legal writing is that is avoids the possibility of misleading amibiguity by always striving to be perfectly logically correct - but at a cost.   That said you have a point, if others agree I wont further object to the deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have zero interest in "legal writing", but thanks for mentioning it again. I do have an interest in visitors to this page gaining a clear understanding of the deletion process and how to improve improvable articles. The sentence in question adds nothing of value. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 12:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. The reasons the section uses emotive language like "Should its life be taken?" is to generate enthusiasm for our noble mission of saving articles and preventing new editors from feeling rejected. As discussed at the MfD for this project,  its takes several orders of magnitude more effort to save a poorly written yet notable article compared to whats needed to vote delete. This is why there's value in emphasising the rhetorical effect of the whole passage with the sentence in question. Its a matter of opinion, and Id agree the sentence would have no value in certain types of technical writing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with enthusiasm. Misguided, misinformed enthusiasm can be deleterious to the project, or indeed any "cause", no matter how "noble" its participants perceive it to be. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Inapropriate use of rescue tag
Could someone justify putting the rescue tag on Ben Nyaumbe, an article which is more than adequately sourced, but just plain in violation of BLP1E, that needs to be redirected to another article? Is the rescue tag being used to canvass for keep votes? Can someone justify the continued existance of this tag, if it is being used for such canvassing? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably best to ask the user who added it (Colonel Warden) to provide his justification, rather than asking a bunch of other editors. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like any good and useful tool the rescue tag can be misused, but I don’t think that’s the case in this instance.  If you read   WP:BLP1E carefully it says that a previously non notable person who becomes famous for one event can still qualify for an article – it depends on the extent of coverage in the media.   As you say the article is more than adequately sourced to pass WP:N , but maybe not when you factor in that the subject seems to qualify for 1E.  Hipocrite you may not know but this squad boasts some members with uncanny ability to find sources where others have failed, such as Schimdt and Fences& Windows.   Its likely that the Colonel is hoping they or another editor will be able to work their magic and come up with further sources, and so save the article by standard ARS means. When ever someone  sees a fine editor like the Colonel acting in a manner that may not seem in the best of faith, it will always be because they haven’t considered policy deeply enough, or considered the valid scope for different interpretations.   Hope this explains for you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a core of editors that through their actions in the name of this project, bring this project and wikipedia into disrepute. This was exemplified by the actions of some members of ARS in the recent Telepathy and war AfD. Verbal   chat  14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what BLP1E says. It is transparent that CW is using (has used, will use) this template as a canvassing tool. What safeguards are there in place to prevent the use of the rescue template as a canvassing tool? I concur with Verbal. Might be time to consider disbanding or massively restructuring this wikiproject. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, have a look at this section: If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.
 * Verbal it was you yourself who used the Telepathy and war AfD to slag off the whole of the ARS, even though your a member. Still there's a difference between trying to bring a project into disrepute and succeeding. Not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. I guess deletionists might regard it as a badge of honour to be kicked out of this squad, but if thats what you're angling for, bewarned  - we are extremely generous and tolerant in these parts! :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't "slag off" the entire ARS, I said it showed the problems the ARS has. Editors misrepresenting others is another problem. Even for "veteran" ARS members. Also, I'm not a deletionist or inclusionist, I am simply an editor trying to improve the project. The silly labelling of every editor into one of these two camps is a further problem. Verbal   chat  14:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The man was bitten by a snake. We don't need lots of references - everyone knows he was bitten by a snake. You're comparing being bitten by a snake to being a presidential assassin. You do see how rediculous this makes you, and by extension, the ARS look, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not have been your intention Verbal but you didnt qualify your criticism very well - even one of our cooler editors who was very much on your side took offence to what you said!
 * Hipocrite He was bitten by a snake and dealt with it heroically. Regardless Hinckley was only there as an example, and also its not our personnel evaluation of an events significance that counts – that would be original research. Its the extent of media coverage that can win an exemption of the 1E rule  (with other unwritten but valid factors being if the person is a minor or likely wouldnt want an entry, neither of which seem to be the case here)  FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want clarification then ask, however I was perfectly clear. My point is and was valid. Misuse and abuse of edit summaries is another problem. Verbal   chat  15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My ears are burning. I came across this AFD today and found the article in question to be quite excellent and so worthy of rescue.  I don't have much time to work on it myself today and, in any case, didn't want to keep it to myself as it seems to be a fun topic.  I'm not sure exactly what might be needed to further improve the article but expect that the editors here will welcome the opportunity, as I would.  That's all.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you consider adding the rescue tag only to articles that lack references or need expanding, not to articles that are fundamentally at odds with the polices driving Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments above were about general misuse rather than this specific instance of misuse, and I highlighted other problems. My point is that I don't think ARS is the problem, it is that some editors use ARS inappropriately. See the Telepathy and war AfD for examples. I am also a bit surprised that by replying to FH above I have been threatened with a topic ban, I feel that is out of order as I have kept on the topic generally; the misuse of ARS tags specifically and ARS in general. This talk page is for discussion of ARS, and Hipocriet agreed with my comment and FH engaged with me. I felt compelled to point out inaccuracies in comments concerning me. Returning to the topic, misuse of the rescue tag and other abuses of ARS are causing a problem and bringing ARS (further) into disrepute - despite the fact that this is done by only a small number of problem editors. I also agree with Hipocrite's advice to CW above. Verbal'   chat  17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles which strongly violate our policies are usually attended to by speedy deletion. Articles at AFD, such as this one, are open to debate and attention by all editors.  Myself, I do not consider this to be a case of BLP1E.  I gather that the original author has created it as part of a series of articles about animal attacks, while I see it as a man bites dog story.  In any case, per WP:OWN, we all have equal standing as editors and User:Hipocrite does not offer any grounds for this matter to be dealt with in camera. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't in camera by any stretch, so that's not a good reason for using the tag. Verbal   chat  17:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We find this matter covered over at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard where User:Hipocrite responds to the matter. Shall I go over there and demand that he back off because this is not really a BLP matter?  No, I am relaxed about this as it is proper that editors consider the matter from different perspectives, like the blind men with the elephant.  But the one who has the trunk and so insists that it is a snake should not be allowed to dominate the conversation as the others may provide useful insights too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the man alive? Yes. Thus, it is a matter for the BLP board. Do you have any other strawmen to fire apon? You are not providing useful insights - you have been widely rejected at the AFD, and aside from your ardent defender (singular) you are should widely rejected here. If the ARS is turning itself into the "keeping BLP violations" board, then it very much is time for it to go. I think some of the other participants should weigh in - is this "squadron" going to be used to canvass for the notability of decidedly non-notable individuals, or are you going to admonish your outlier? Time to pick, honestly. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd wanted us to offer constructive criticism to CW Hipocrite it would have helped if youd been up front about it instead of framing your initial post as a request for justification. And one is not an outlier just because one might have different opinions on a few issues!
 * And Verbal, looks like the option of a ban was mentioned not so much for your replies but as you needlessly reverted jclemens very useful  splitting of the thread into its two separate components.   The  change made the conversation easier to follow,  though I have to say I still don't understand what constructive points you were trying to make.  Its great if youre not identifying individuals out of gentleness,  but you could at least specify the specific behaviour you object to.  I take it you're not  only agreeing with hypocrite or you wouldn't have made the unfocussed generalised complaints?   Anyway guys, youre still welcome here but it might be best if you leave this for tommora and then if it still seems worth it try and articulate your complaints a little more clearly. Sorry if my replies came across as baiting by the way, its more Im not used to dealing with accademic types except here on wikkipeadia. Im getting the feeling at least one here is having a bad hair day! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems at the Telepathy and war afd had the same root cause - an inappropriate rescue tag (in fact it's much clearer in that AfD). Each of my responses above highlights a further problem, which are caused by a few editors, and there are several that keep recurring. The problem isn't the tag but these disruptive editors. And reverting a change to the thread which removes context and breaks the chronological order is not a problem, and I didn't find it useful. My complaints are not unfocussed, but the responses (including the topic ban threat) have been. Each of my replies to you was focussed on your reply to me, and my initial comment addressed the same problem as Hipocrite's initial complaint: misuse of the rescue tag. Another apparent problem is that some vocal and very active ARS editors are highly resistive to feedback and criticism. Verbal   chat  18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make it absolutely clear I am saying that inappropriate use of the tag is a problem, but that the problem is caused by some editors rather than, in my opinion, an inherent flaw with ARS or the tag. Verbal   chat  19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay that's a step forward. Still not sure what the specific issue is  with the tag on telepathy, unless your position is there was no valuable content worth rescuing in the article at all? It would have been a problem if we'd tried to edit war to keep the article in its initial form, which admittedly was non compliant with policy,  but no real attempt was made to do that by any squad member. Instead what happened was 1) an attempt to reach consensus that  topics with a hint of the paranormal arent necessarily un-encyclopaedic or NPOV,  but as that got no support that angle was quickly dropped.  2)  the original article was copied to a different wikki to help the author not feel bad, with a side effect that he may have had less reason to go against consensus to keep the parts that were well written  but  non encyclopaedic.  3) there were efforts to save the valuable parts of the article by making improving it in accordance with policy, and a suggestion of a re-name.   So what exactly was the problem with the tag?
 * And it would also help if you clarify what exactly is the behaviour you object to with these certain editors?  I don't recall Squad members being uncivil on the ADF (except to a very limited extent after provocation);  making bare votes,  keep making the same point repeatedly, trying to control the conversation by reverting, acting as a unified gang   (two argued for deletion)  or any other objectionable behaviour.  Its looking to me that you might think we're being disruptive just because some have very  different POVs? I'll apologise if  I've missed anything.
 * As per my intial comment I agree there are cases where the rescue tag can be miss used, for example on an ADF where I recently voted delete it was added by a non squad member toa border line BLP that had overtones of an attack page. Im just not seeing what the issue is with the cases discussed here and what specific behaviour you want changed? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying that Colonial Warden here didn't "edit war to keep [Telepathy and War] in its initial form?" Could you rexamine your assumptions, please? Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from the issue of whether the tag was added appropriately by Colonel Warden in these two cases, I've seen a lot of uses lately that I wondered at. As there is no restriction of who can add the rescue tag, it's easy for the article creator to add the tag to an article without much hope of survival. Perhaps we need to instigate a rule that the tagger needs to justify the addition of the rescue tag in the AfD, otherwise anyone can remove it? I find it dispiriting and a waste of my time to trawl through articles tagged for rescue to find only no-hopers. Some kind of prioritisation system for articles to rescue would be great, but I'm not sure how it would work. ARS members giving it the thumbs up or thumbs down? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of prod2 for the ARS? Just commenting on the technical possibility Fritzpoll (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, but I'm thinking not of another page template, but something for active ARS members to use to help filter out which articles to spend time on. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. As usually removing the tag has caused much more drama than simply ignoring it would have. Did the tag get added to something that you or we or someone thinks simpy can't be rescued? Who cares? Ignore it. Work on a different tagged article. Personally I think the article in question might have a shot if sources can show any notable impact. I doubt they do but there's a chance. I concur with Pablomismo that taking this to the editor who added it is the way to go. If they have a pattern of seemingly abusing then their talkpage is the place to see that pattern develop a community response. prod2 is an interesting idea but I think would be rejected as it lends itself to perceptions of vote-stacking and we have the dual concern of keeping the rescue tag as minimal as possible. Frankly anything we come up with might simply be gamed in the same sense. What counts is thoughtful and reasoned discussion at the AfD and work on the tagged item. Eventually we may have a tool that helps us sort how the tagged XfD's are progressing sorted by date order but that's a bit down the road. -- <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   23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work because the tag attracts editors who make incredibly stupid arguments. — Slightly exaggerated example based on a recent AfD: The voices in my head tell me to kill Obama. Keep. The government doesn't want us to know the reasons why some people think Obama must be killed, but Wikipedia is not censored. Keep. Attacks by psychopaths on US presidents are obviously notable. Keep. This article has many inline sources, and I am sure there is some useful information somewhere. Keep. I don't have time to look at this article now, but it looks OK to me. It probably needs improvement, not deletion. — If we let these editors dominate the discussion, we easily end up at DRV because the closing admin didn't bother to look at the article. Hans Adler 23:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That remains ... not a tag issue. In the example you give, those users casting empty !votes are the issue as well as teh closer who may need to learn better how to judge consensus. XfD discussions will likely always have "incredibly stupid arguments" going in every direction. We work with all editors to improve their contributions as they may actually have valid points just poorly expressed. The tag can neither be blamed or lauded - it's just a tag. -- <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   00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem with this argument, Benji - and I hope you won't take this as a challenge to the ARS, which I do not think is the cause in of itself - is that if an AfD is stacked with comments of this nature, and the admin ignores them and closes delete anyway (assuming there are actual policy/guideline based reasons), they often end up dragged before DRV for not following the "clear consensus". This is obviously an editor and not a wikiproject issue, but whilst I'm all for the legitimate challenging of admin decisions (we aren't infallible), this additional process is time-consuming for everyone.  Just some musings - again, not an ARS issue. hope my comments are welcome here... Fritzpoll (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is indeed sad to have DrV abused if it's not clear cut but I'd rather let those who really want to try to improve something try. Stranger things have happened; if the same folks are abusing DrV that too will be seen for what it is and dealt with. Sometimes it's also hard to sort out what is zealousness and what is abuse; it can be near impossible to suss out intentions. My hope is that all those abusing the community will get fed up and leave when the rest of us want to keep talking to ensure we're acting fairly. Seems to be the price to pay for the free 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   14:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and of course the reason we have DRV is that abuse can cut both ways - it's just that editors of either extreme often don't see that their actions are just as abusive as those they condemn for one reason or the other. There is no procedural way of altering this, and it is something we'll just have to get on with, but I hope that those reading our little exchange here will come to realise the frustrations of admins who close with "delete" in such circumstances and are then dragged all over the place being accused of abuses, of being ignorant, of beeing biased, etc.  It always surprises me a little that editors forget that admins (or non-admins for that matter) are just volunteers, just human beings, that they occasionally make mistakes, and that really the manner in which they are treated over deletion issues is not always conducive to a collaborative environment.  Unfortunately, my level of surprise in these issues is gradually (and sadly) diminishing over time. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Bitter and jaded? Your table is ready! Seriously it's part of just having a thick skin, there's a great essay somewhere about who cares? Someone calls you a turd, a vandal, or any number of more colourful thing - who cares? If they're right then what's the issue? If they're wrong you know better so ignore them. I think I learned to allow more good faith when someone heaped a pile of bad faith against me. It upset me and I almost left but then realized I really wasn't doing anything here for them so my leaving wasn't going to change how they treated anyone. In any case I don't see any easy answers except advising to not take it personal - life is too short. -- <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   10:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah - as I said in my RfA, you need to remember that it is only a website and that a nice cup of tea (literal in my case) is always the best cure for these kind of issues. I'm mostly musing on the general case, not on me specifically - I'm more jaded than when I first got my two extra tabs at the top of my page, certainly, because people seem to want to adopt a confrontational style.  But bitter?  Not really - I have nothing to be bitter about:  Wikipedia is, at its most basic level, a hobby.  I'm just hopeful that everyone comes to realise that Fritzpoll (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)