Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron

Statement of the dispute

Editors have been raising issues with the activities of the Article Rescue Squadron essentially as soon as the group was created. The main focus has been on concerns about the Wikiproject engaging in vote-stacking at Articles for Deletion through the use of various tools such as the deleted rescue template and currently active rescue list. Some editors have expressed concerns that the group's activities may rise to the level of disruption to prove a point, presumably about deletion policy (sometimes including merges and redirects). At the center of this dispute is one seemingly simple question:

“ Does the Article Rescue Squadron act as a vehicle for canvassing keep votes at deletion discussions? ”

To address that question, evidence of canvassing is presented below as well as proposed solutions to the conduct at issue in this dispute. Focus should be on solutions to a conduct dispute and not personal or ideological battles between editors. Any editors named in this context are to illustrate examples of the conduct concerned, not for the purpose of individual action against those editors.

Principles

I would like to point out first that there is some confusion about what qualifies as canvassing. The result of canvassing does not need to be exact. What matters is how editors are notified and the perception about how those editors are likely to vote. To better understand what constitutes a violation of the guideline here is the table from WP:CANVASS pointing to each form of canvassing:

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Appropriate	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing

As noted in the canvassing guideline the problem with such activity is "the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" in violation of the principles of the consensus-building process. For that reason notifications such as delsorts and Article alerts do not serve as canvassing since there is no bias in the alert towards a specific outcome, nor are editors interested in a topic area inherently perceived as likely to vote keep or delete.

The desirable method of getting consensus is to formulate a compromise solution that can satisfy all or, at least, most parties involved. In this respect canvassing represents a form of gaming that seeks to entrench a false consensus to legitimize a bias with regards to a content dispute. Simply put, appealing to editors believed to be of a certain attitude on the dispute with messages arguing explicitly or implicitly for an outcome those editors are believed to favor violates Wikipedia norms on seeking consensus. The greater danger posed by such activity is that it feeds into an existing partisan divide within the community and treats AfD as a battleground that restrains the prospects for a vibrant and meaningful debate within the community. Instead of spreading WikiLove people rush to the respective sides of the "battlefield" and compromise becomes a no-man's land. Such division is only fueled by canvassing and often does nothing to resolve the core concerns of other editors, distracting editors from making improvements to articles. This is why canvassing is a serious problem.

Desired outcomes

The Article Rescue Squadron should either radically reform its practices or cease all involvement in deletion discussions, interpreted as including discussions about redirects and mergers. Suggestions have been made in the past about how to reorient the Article Rescue Squadron in a way that would prevent such canvassing yet further the desire to improve articles. The following suggestions from before and after the deletion of the rescue tag seem largely satisfactory with regards to addressing that concern:

• User:Scottywong/ARS proposal
• User:Scottywong/ARS proposal 2
• User talk:Jclemens/Archive 9#Content Rehabilitation Project

Examples of wikiprojects that more closely resemble what is desired in one of this nature:

• Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability

As a point of clarification, the alternative suggestion that they cease involvement in deletion discussion is not intended to stop any editor from contributing constructively to articles or even to stop any editors in the ARS from commenting at AfD. The desire is that the ARS itself not be used as a tool for canvassing deletion discussions. The group ceasing involvement in deletion discussions would not preclude any individual editors from getting involved, so long as they do not attempt to coordinate with other editors off the designated discussion page on ways to "rescue" any material subject to the discussion. Coordinating on the designated discussion page is obviously still acceptable. Cases where an article has been tagged for speedy or proposed deletion would not be included so long as there is an appropriate, existing, non-partisan template such as the under construction tag added and any notice at ARS is removed should the article be nominated for deletion following the period of attempted improvements.

Without severe policing and/or a massive refocusing of the project, however, it is difficult to conceive of a way the Article Rescue Squadron can continue getting involved in deletion discussions as defined above without it leading to canvassing. Until such changes are made it is preferred the ARS not be involved in such discussions.

Background of the dispute

At the forefront of this dispute is the long-running divide in the community between "deletionists" and "inclusionists" who take different views on the current notability guidelines. Many members of the ARS articulate the long-standing "inclusionist" perspective about use of criteria such as WP:NOT and seek to put a stronger emphasis on WP:GNG with the consideration that even purely local coverage should be counted. One more typical grievance raised by members and supporters is that AfD in itself is a tool for canvassing (articulating support for the perennial "Articles for Discussion" name change proposal). While not all members articulate these views, it is not uncommon for the most active contributors to the group to express attitudes that would be considered inclusionist. Essentially as soon as the group and its associated rescue tag were created there were concerns raised that the group was primarily involved in pro-inclusion vote-stacking at AfD rather than improving articles.

These concerns of being geared towards inclusionist vote-stacking have persisted and lead to my involvement in the case. I nominated several articles for deletion on the basis of them being nothing more than a collection of rumors per WP:NOT. Among those nominations was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street, which got tagged by User:Northamerica1000. When I noticed the sudden influx of keep votes and the rescue tag I attempted to discuss the matter with those editors and failing there went to ANI about the group's actions, having no prior knowledge of the controversy surrounding the group. Many editors commented to agree about the inappropriate use of the rescue tag with one editor noting that Northamerica engaged in mass-tagging often without there being any meaningful improvements to tagged articles. One result of this was a discussion that led to the deletion of the rescue template. Another result was a village pump discussion over ways to reform the wikiproject (moved from and linked to from the ANI discussion) that included one suggestion of restricting members from commenting at tagged AfDs. Just a day after the deletion of the rescue tag, as the village pump discussion was going on, Northamerica created the rescue list.

Unaware of the new list I nominated an article for deletion a couple weeks later on the basis of it being sourced to minor mentions in local news sources. The specifics of that case are provided below, but much like with the previous case the article was listed by Northamerica and the discussion was skewed by several additional keep votes. I initiated an ANI case about the list in response without linking to the AfD or detailing the case, but upon it being closed due to an MfD on the list resulting in keep I created a new discussion focusing on that specific evidence of canvassing. Several editors commented in that second discussion to express concerns that the case involved canvassing and that ANI discussion was ultimately closed as no consensus.

Evidence

Canvassing

My focus will be on two of the forms of canvassing that are most clearly demonstrated by the ARS: campaigning and vote-stacking. However, I think there is a good argument for saying they demonstrate every form on some level, but they only need to satisfy one to be involved in canvassing.

Campaigning

When it comes to the current rescue list the mere listing serves as an element of campaigning. The directions at the top of the page explicitly instructs any editor listing a page there to provide "specific rationale" for why an article or other content should be kept. Here are a few quotes from typical listings over the past month:

"This topic appears to just meet WP:GNG" - [1]

"WP:GNG is met." - [2]

"Historical prep school, with several notable former pupils." - [3]

"Article is clearly WP:N" - [4]

"The subject passes WP:GNG." - [5]

Ignoring the independent merits of any given listing, the clear pattern is of editors going to this list to argue that an article is notable and thus should be kept. Some of the listings are a lot more severe in their campaigning:

"This seems to be a tendentious nomination of a business-related article." - [6]

"I do not know much about the subject however I saw it was contributed by a new Wikipedian who was immediately bombarded with all kinds of deletion canned notices - a sure way to chase away a newbie from a part of the world we should be encouraging to join Wikipedia." - [7]

"Not clear (to me) what the motive is for deletion nomination." - [8] (key word there is "motive" as a reason for deletion was given)

A clear pattern is established consistent with the instructions provided at the top of the page that listings argue for keeping any article listed. These kinds of messages can only serve to bias editors with regards to an AfD vote.

The project page for ARS also has a strong campaign feel to it. The three paragraphs at the top of the main ARS page make a brief reference to editing articles, but only in the respect of verifying content as opposed to proving notability. However, the rhetoric of needing to save articles is prominently displayed with comments such as this:

Some writer may have worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve worthwhile content in the encyclopedia.

Another section of the page reads like an op-ed arguing for inclusion complete with an image of a sign saying "Save Notable Topics!" There is no mention of some alternatives to keeping an article, including deletion, in that section. Included in the first paragraph of that section is a dire warning about deletion driving away editors. Only at the very bottom of the project page are merges briefly suggested as an alternative option. Several essays are included at the bottom of the page, with them being there for at least two years. Most of the essays have a distinctively, or blatantly, "inclusionist" tilt:

• Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state
• Wikipedia:Give an article a chance
• User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy
• Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich
• User:Mike Cline/The Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates

Several times there have been attempts to cement a connection between the Article Rescue Squadron and inclusionism such as a merger with the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians attempted by User:Ikip (now Okip): [9] [10] [11]. Northamerica engaged in a similar effort in August and September of 2011 starting out with anti-deletionist edits to the meta pages on the inclusionist and deletionist groups ([12] [13]) and adding material to strongly promot the Article Rescue Squadron ([14][15]). Many of these changes were copied over to the English Wikipedia ([16][17][18]) including the Article Rescue Squadron project page ([19][20][21][22][23][24]).

One of the edits made to the ARS page inserted material on "arguments against deletion" filled with strongly inclusionist rhetoric. This material was removed and sparked off an edit war involving User:Dream Focus and User:Okip. Dream restores the material twice ([25] [26]) and Okip once ([27]). While most of the changes to the ARS page were reverted, the result has been the retention of a small list including two argumentative pleas against deletion such as one arguing against deletion based on WP:NOT. Keep in mind that this is on top of the existing biases of the project page noted above.

Vote-stacking

This bombardment of information about the consequences of deletion and argumentative pleas for inclusion do not create the prospect for a reliably objective pool of editors. Its claim of being "non-partisan" is belied by this pervasive imagery that favors inclusion almost exclusively. Also, while comments at the various pages try to make assurances that the project is not about voting keep there is nothing convincingly said to discourage this. The "code of conduct" only specifically objects to "vote and scoot" behavior. However, even that comment is weak-willed saying only that editors should "try" not to do that. At the same time editors are repeatedly encouraged to leave comments at AfD throughout the project main page. By creating a pool of editors biased towards inclusion the result of any AfD being listed getting active participation from ARS will, in all but the most obvious cases, result in vote-stacking for keeping an article. Here are some of the more egregious instances where that has occurred with the list (cases where ARS participation appears to play a decisive role in saving a clearly questionable article):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film)
  • What is said in the listing is consistent with most others in arguing for the subject's notability.
  • The editor who listed it votes keep at the AfD and provides a diff of him adding a few sources. Aside from the removal of a tag and some changes to spacing, those are the only edits made after the listing. However, the dates clearly provided by all of the sources line up specifically with the pilot episode premiering, indicating WP:ROUTINE coverage.
  • Another ARS member comes in some time later to vote keep apparently citing those sources as demonstrating notability. Based on the sources two editors outside ARS vote keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mailstorage
  • In this case the real issue is not questionable notability, as the AfD was leaning towards a decision for merging with even the nominator suggesting the possibility of a merge. Even though the dispute plainly appears to be about a potential merge it is not noted in the listing that a merge is being suggested as an alternative to deletion.
  • Within hours, several members of the ARS comment at the AfD to vote keep. One does vote merge but the result is more votes for keeping and the article is closed as keep, without the possibility of a merge mentioned.
  • One of the sources cited at the list and in the AfD is deceptively claimed to be from "Fox News" (implying the cable news channel) when it was in fact a local Fox station in New York covering a local business. The other source similarly is coverage of a local business in the Chicago area.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process improvement
  • The listing is the one that starts out with the quote about it being a "tendentious nomination" followed with a comment that the subject is "extremely" notable.
  • As in the above case the dispute centered on a merge, as the first two votes are for a merge to a similar article. Once more, this apparent push for a merge is not mentioned at the listing.
  • Two ARS members comment to vote keep after the listing. Eventually the discussion is closed as keep with only the possibility of a merge, as opposed to being closed as merge.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keerthi sagathia
  • This listing is the one that consisted of the quote: "I do not know much about the subject however I saw it was contributed by a new Wikipedian who was immediately bombarded with all kinds of deletion canned notices - a sure way to chase away a newbie from a part of the world we should be encouraging to join Wikipedia." It was a clearly non-neutral message that offered no cause for keeping the article and could only serve to solicit votes.
  • Aside from the editor listing it all the editors who comment at the AfD to vote keep are from the ARS and only comment after the listing. Two clearly comment at the list before commenting at the AfD with another adding the ARS delsort before commenting indicating all three of them looked at the listing before voting.
  • Hours after it was listed one of the ARS members noticed there was a likely WP:COI issue with the article as the creating editor had the same last name. A brief search turns up the editor's name as being the same as the subject's manager and press contact. No further mention is made by any of the ARS members about this issue and none of them bring it up at AfD. While not on its own a reason for deletion, such issues are significant in cases of unclear notability.
  • The article was kept despite no clear claim to notability with five keep votes and two delete votes (including the nominator).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal's Pizza (Dallas)
  • Initially the consensus was clearly for deleting the article. Only Northamerica1000 left a vote for keeping the article and it stood at three delete votes to one keep (presuming you do not count the non-voting comment of the article's creator). After three days with no change North lists the article for rescue.
  • Soon after that listing three ARS members comment at the AfD. One votes a clear keep, another leaves a comment claiming the delete votes do not address why the mentions in local sources fail to prove notability (essentially a keep argument without the vote), and the last does vote delete, but at the time phrases it as a "tentative" delete.
  • Another editor, who is not an ARS member, comments at the list before going to vote keep at the AfD. Only after the list and the AfD were mentioned at ANI did other editors step in and move consensus back towards delete.

General ARS issues

Improving articles

One defense often given for the Article Rescue Squadron's present state is that they work to improve articles, however, this defense is not as compelling when put in context. Many members of the Article Rescue Squadron such as User:MichaelQSchmidt manage to improve many articles facing deletion easily enough without this wikiproject listing or tagging articles. In most cases listing or tagging an article leads to little or no action with regards to improving the articles.

• [28] SCOUT eh! is listed with a message attacking the nomination as POV, after the editor listing it has already made significant improvements. No significant improvements are made to the article by other editors.
• [29] Aziz Shavershian was nominated on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS and sees no significant improvements after listing. Result of the listing is that two ARS members vote keep.
• [30] Corey Smith article gets no significant improvements after being listed.
• [31] Article on Kenneth Parcell sees no significant improvements after being listed.
• [32] Patricia Kernighan article sees no improvements after being listed.

A brief thumbing through shows most listed articles either already saw significant improvement prior to being listed or saw no significant improvements at all. Typically the only meaningful result that could affect the outcome of a discussion is a few additional keep votes.

Merges

In addition to the above cases where an AfD was clearly favoring a merge before the ARS became involved, there have been attempts to get the ARS more formally involved in merge discussions. As it concerns the list, User:Dream Focus made such an effort with regards to an article on the Avatar character from Ultima that had been merged to a list of characters several years ago. When an editor recently reverted the merge Dream listed the article. Dream made a brief request for sources, but the listing started out with and mostly consisted of complaints about the previous discussion from several years ago. A response to the listing by User:CallawayRox described mergers as a "sneaky deletion" in supporting ARS involvement.

A discussion was initiated at the village pump objecting to this expansion of ARS activities to merge discussions. Several ARS members commented to express a view that merges are a form of deletion with one complaining that the editor initiating the discussion is interested in "limiting freedom of speech" by objecting to the expansion of the ARS scope to include discussions about merging articles.

Conclusion

The Article Rescue Squadron does, as many would concede, occasionally do good work with articles facing deletion. However, as the above illustrates, the group in its current form is just as often, if not more often, engaged in canvassing keep votes for deletion discussions. Many editors do the same or better work at improving articles and rescue them from deletion without needing a rescue list or tag. If anything, the emphasis of the ARS on getting involved in deletion discussions distracts from the more constructive pursuit of improving articles so that they don't ever have to face the risk of deletion. A show of good faith on the part of the wikiproject, through instilling a non-partisan attitude on the project pages and strongly advocating against voting (explicitly or implicitly) at deletion discussions, is the only measure that can demonstrate the group should remain involved in articles nominated at AfD. Widespread community input on this issue is likely to be the only thing that can compel such change.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View
2. Wikipedia:Consensus
3. Wikipedia:Canvassing
4. Wikipedia:Gaming the system
5. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
6. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

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

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

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

Statements

Statement on Canvassing

The Article Rescue Squadron frequently serves as a vehicle for canvassing keep votes at AfD.

Support

1. Clearly serves as a method of canvassing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. I do not support everything in this RFC, but I do believe that the ARS -- or, perhaps more specifically, its Content Rescue List tool -- frequently serves as an inadvertent vehicle for canvassing. I do not believe this is the intent behind the tool, although I'm not confident that that's a particularly salient point. I also note that the ARS frequently (but not always) self-polices by declining to act on more baldly canvassing-in-nature Rescue requests but, again, I'm not confident that that's a particularly salient point, either. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Too frequently ARS is "rescuing" for rescue's sake alone, not for content improvement. Shadowjams (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Does it ever happen? Yes, just like canvassing happens other places on wikipedia. Is it "frequent" and do we encourage it? No. Even if we could try it, too many "deletionists" keep us honest. Citing examples where not a single editor opines delete and other editors reverse their delete votes due to article improvement is absurd.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Anybody can monitor the on-wiki list—inclusionist or deletionist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. I've certainly seen it happen in the past. I don't think it happens to the same degree or with the frequency that it used to do, and I don't think it's a serious problem with the current state of the project. I've also seen it happen in the reverse direction - I've definitely seen delete !votes attracted by an ars posting. I would hope that closing admins evaluate focused enough on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented that !vote stacking, where it does occur, has little or no effect. (Also, any group of people truly interested in canvassing would be doing so offwiki in a nontransparent fashion anyway.) Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
4. CallawayRox (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Convert the ARS Rescue List into a proper delsort list to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delort offering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
6. TDA's focus on this to the exclusion of every other aspect of ARS's activity is indicative, to me, of the biased and closed-minded attitude he brings to this issue, which he has parlayed into disruption in various places on Wikipedia. He really needs to stop, now, or be removed from the project by force, since his focus is not where it should be, on improving the encyclopedia. 04:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Mix equal measures of myth and personal vendetta and this is what you get. It's time for the extremist opponents of ARS to Assume Good Faith. Their template is gone — terrible and misinformed decision though that was — and yet the onslaught continues. Stop this stupidity or verily I say: the boomerang shall strike ye! Carrite (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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

A proper delsort does the exact same thing... notifying ANY interested party that an article under their purview warrants attention... yet no one decries adding AFDs to other such project-specific delsorts as canvassing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement on Project Page

The Article Rescue Squadron's project page provides a biased view of the deletion process that favors ideas considered to be inclusionist.

Support

1. What is not said about alternatives to inclusion, together with all the rhetoric and essays about inclusion support this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes, the ARS comes from an inclusionist worldview, that improvement is better than deletion whenever possible. There is nothing sinister about this, its a legitimate viewpoint for a group on Wikipedia to promote. Just like Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue did.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
4. This is clearly true to the point of almost not warranting a mention. I personally think the inclusionist rhetoric should be dialed down to the point that the project is a more plainly welcome one for non-inclusionists such as myself (I am an ARS member, but much of the rhetoric on ARS project pages is not exactly agreeable to me). I'm one of the more-than-a-few who would support renaming the project altogether to get away from this pseudo-heroic "rescue" concept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Unsurprisingly, it is true. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
6. True, but not a problem. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
7. The ARS is necessary to counter the process's inherent bias towards deletionism. CallawayRox (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose this witch hunt. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Convert the ARS Rescue List into a proper delsort to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delort ofering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. Problems with any individuals is addressed by educating those few indivuduals, not by chastising the other 300 who do good work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

@Milo I mentioned the BLP rescue project above as a good template for ARS because it is not narrowly limited to deletion discussions, instead focusing on all articles with a specific issue, and explicitly suggests deletion as a reasonable way of dealing with an article. That is much different from the Article Rescue Squadron.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the BLP rescue project arose out of the attempt to wholesale delete something like 60,000 unreferenced BLPs in early 2010. The project was dedicated to going through all unreferenced BLPs and sourcing them if possible. We recognized some would have to go into a deletion process because they couldn't even meet WP:V. Similarly, the ARS focuses on another category of articles heading for deletion -- articles at AfD. I founded the BLP rescue project based on my experience at ARS--but I think the reason it was less controversial is because AfD itself has long been a source of controversy, and partially because of what Beeblebrox is hinting at -- who participated and did the work.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but my reasons for not objecting to that group is just what I stated above. The project page for BLP rescue is non-partisan, giving equal weight to all possible outcomes. Just as importantly, the project does not have a narrow focus on influencing discussions, with the main focus instead being on providing sources and improving articles that are simply at risk of deletion at some undetermined point in the future.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Scottywong

I've been involved with the ARS for several years, and much of my early involvement was spent "battling" against what I perceived as a canvassing loophole created by the now-deleted {{Rescue}} template. During the time I spent fighting against this perceived injustice, I eventually came to the conclusion that the problem is not with the ARS, but with a small proportion of the editors who are active members of the ARS. Not only that, but the problem has been substantially reduced recently.

Therefore, I think this RfC is fundamentally flawed. First of all, the deletion of the {{Rescue}} template significantly diminished the potential for inappropriate canvassing, while significantly increasing transparency so as to make any canvassing much more visible and trackable. Second of all, canvassing is an editor problem, not a wikiproject problem. The stated mission of the ARS is not to maximize keep votes at AfD's, it's to improve articles. If there is an editor who behaving inappropriately, or who is not pulling in the same direction as the rest of the wikiproject, then that editor needs to be dealt with on an individual basis.

There is absolutely no sense in proposing that all ARS members should be essentially topic banned from voting at AfD's, just because two or three of their members occasionally behave questionably. The goal of the ARS is to improve articles that are facing deletion, which is a noble goal. Would it be ideal if all ARS members focused primarily on improving articles and less on voting at AfD's? Of course. The 2 proposals of mine that DA linked to above (which are now mostly irrelevant and quite old, from when the rescue template was still around) clearly show this as my opinion. Is there a need (or even a practical way) to litigate this through additional bureaucracy, i.e. to forcibly prevent ARS members from voting at AfD's? Clearly the answer is no; and particularly moreso now that the rescue template is no longer a factor.

The ARS is not a perfect wikiproject, but it represents an important safeguard in the deletion process of WP. While some might agree that reform is necessary, the proposals of this RfC are not the kind of reform the wikiproject currently needs. Perhaps some more of the long-time members of the ARS should step up and suggest some changes, rather than allowing the wikiproject to be unilaterally and incrementally tinkered with by the one or two of its most active members. —SW— ^confer 19:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Convert the ARS Rescue List into a proper delsort list to bring it more in line with existng projects... and as a delort ofering such transparency, it is no more canvassing than is any other project's delsort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. The deletion process inevitably bites many newbies, some of whom stay anyway, and some of those gravitate towards ARS. How we channel those editors and their enthusiasm to help into saving the articles that can be saved and are worth saving is an ongoing exercise. But if ARS didn't exist we would need to invent it anyway, and gently guide new members into ways of finding sources and spotting the rescuable. ϢereSpielChequers 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

   Which is why I wrote WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Oppose

Comments

I should note Scotty, that I found out about those proposals from looking at the Village Pump discussion mentioned in the background of the dispute. The comment where you mentioned those proposals was after the tag got deleted. While they were old, you did mention them even in light of the tag's deletion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Scotty, please read the desired outcomes a little more carefully. There is no proposal to ban anyone from AfD. It is a suggestion that, without reform, the wikiproject should not be getting involved. Members such as DGG and MichaelQSchmidt contribute to AfD frequently and constructively and I see nothing wrong with them continuing to do that regardless of the outcome of this RfC. Simply put, tags and lists that use skewed messages to direct members to these AfDs are at issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is a significant difference between a delsort for project X and ARS. With ARS there is the intention of saving the articles. With other projects, the intention is to bring people familiar with the subject to the AFD to provide expert opinion on the subject. Project X delsort isn't intended to "save" the article and will often result in users from Project X coming over to !vote delete because they realize that the subject isn't notable.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A valid point, but I suggested a delsort in the first place in order to maintain the neutrality that TDA seems to feel the ARS project lacks. It really breaks down to perceptions toward individuals. Educating editors is far preferred over sanctions against an entire project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Uncle G

I heard about this rescue list, so I thought that I'd try it out. I found copious sources for an article during an AFD discussion, but didn't have the time to do a rescue myself. So I listed it at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list#Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, complete with a hint as to what source I would start with in structuring and improving the article and where the sources for opposing views were. Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs) replied by saying "Being a member of WP:ARS does not mean to always say Keep.". My immediate thought was Quite right. It should mean doing article rescue. I didn't ask you to vote. I asked you to write.. In the end, no rescuers took up the challenge of writing from sources that I'd handed over on a platter.

I've said it before, that part of the problem with the article rescue squadron is the people who don't write articles and aren't actually article rescuers. Article rescue isn't about voting. It's about writing. I dislike having to say it, but if anyone knows what it involves, it's me, given that I've been doing article rescues for approaching a decade, now. I include another of my big green boxes:

You don't get to be an article rescuer by signing up to some club. You get to be an article rescuer by actually rescuing articles. You may think that you're an article rescuer by dint of listing yourself on some membership roster. You do not. If you don't write articles, you aren't an article rescuer. Conversely, people who actually do perform article rescues are article rescuers no matter what some club membership might say.

There are actual article rescuers who are part of the "squadron". But equally there are some editors there of whom I've never seen it said "keep after rewrite/vast improvement by User XYZ" in an AFD discussion.

By the way, here's another thing that I've said before: You want Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law? You've got it:

The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.

That applies in spades to this RFC. I'm amazed at people not realizing, for example, that the "associations" on Meta were originally intended as nothing but jokes. Stevertigo had a dozy idea. Angela took the mickey out of it. And far too many people who came along later didn't realize that it was all the result of nonsense originating from the same stable as the baloney that is Project:Concept limit does. The "dirty -istas" are names for name calling. They aren't and weren't ever genuine philosophies or valid analyses of Wikipedia editors. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• For a more thorough treatment of Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law, see what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus. Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Agree wholeheartedly. Despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ("The project is not about casting !votes (and therefore not about vote-stacking). For example, if you work on an article that has been listed for rescue, try to add reliable-source references and edit the content to address concerns raised in the AfD discussion, rather than just 'vote and scoot.'"), most ARS regulars do little to no content work on articles raised at the rescue list. They just show up at the AfD to vote keep and when the article is kept, label it a valiant rescue. A minority actually work on articles, revamping and sourcing them. Goodvac (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
   • Actually, most of the majority who improve articles have learned to avoid discussion like these. And many of the more vocal minority of experienced editors who were first involved in the ARS have left Wikipedia entirely. So it appears it is the behavior of an uneducated minority or of unschooled newcomers that has brought us to discuss the ARS once again. Education is better than sanctions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
     • Some of those who "vote and scoot" are neither uneducated nor new. They have been established editors for quite some time, and I wouldn't expect them to be amenable to education. Goodvac (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Mostly per the second green box, which coincides with my thoughts perfectly. (The rest makes sense, too.) The labels "inclusionist" and "deletionist", while arguably sometimes accurate, are inherently polarizing. Their widespread use promotes an us-against-them mindset that can make the process of reaching consensus more difficult. Rivertorch (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
3. The second box is bang on. We do have free speech here. But these are two words that never improve the quality of the discussion. Inherently polarizing indeed. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

• " part of the problem with the article rescue squadron is the people who don't write articles and aren't actually article rescuers." Exactly. voting at AFD is not equivalent to working on an article. Linking to a Google search with your AFD comment isn't equivalent to improving an article. Accusing someone of not properly following WP:BEFORE is not equivalent to working on an article. Yet these are all tactics (and that is the right word for them) used by the problematic minority of ARS members. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis". I write on lots of obscure crap, but there was no way I was wading into that. Plus its a content fork (maybe a reasonable one) on articles about the subprime mortgage crisis, so its not like any good content wouldn't have a home.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  Agree. See THIS "bold" edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by a random dude

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

Imagine how many articles might have been improved and rescued in the time it took to research and prepare this RFC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

So far, no shouting. And TDA has already been sanctioned about involvement and drama with the ARS. This RFC was introduced only after he got permission. I think we best resolve this with education of only a few editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Proposals

Proposal from The Devil's Advocate

The Article Rescue Squadron should initiate a discussion about a significant refocusing of the wikiproject and invite the outside community to make proposals on how to reform the group in a way that would effectively address concerns about canvassing and bias, while providing for the group to continue making valuable contributions to articles.

Support

1. I have some ideas, as do other editors, on how to change the focus of the ARS to make its activities more acceptable and less controversial.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. As someone who has seen at least two AfDs he opened dramatically change course due to the interference from the ARS (Stacked (TV film) and Cecil Newton, Sr.), I support this proposal. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I support this, as I think the status quo is going to keep leading us back to the same place of controversy, but please note my comments in the section below. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. TDA's focus on the ARS borders on being disruptive, and appears to be, to some extent, unreasonable and compulsive. You need to put away this issue and edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
2. It is not the place of us outsiders to force groups which they disagree with to do anything. If the proposer wants to change ARS, I would invite him to join the group and to initiate changes through normal internal decision-making processes. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

The current rescue list SHOULD be set up as a neutral page as is done for other wikiprojects listed HERE, and its current content sent to their talk page where such specifc discussions toward improvement of specific articles belong, and where the more experieced members can guide newcomers who may misundertsnad the improvement or AFD proceses. Education is the answer, not sanctions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably for the same reason you edited the AfD page to promote the rescue list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh you mean to update the obsolete content that was already there? Diego (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that the ARS has been using the AfD page to promote itself for a while. Ok.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely people participating in AfDs had something to say about the content in that page, so it was there by consensus? (linking to policy is funny). Diego (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And the funniest thing is that you're arguing against something that has been part of the instructions for deletion since (at least) january 2008 (the instructions to improve the article were already present by then) and which nobody (not even yourself) objected before you now, today. Diego (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe no one who would object noticed until, you know, today.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal from Beeblebrox

In the past I have been one of the users demonized as a rabid deletionist by certain members of the ARS. And that has always been the problem, it is not the project as a whole, but certain members of it, that engage in the very worst sort of combative behavior, giving the entire project a bad name when in fact there are users involved with it who are doing some pretty awesome stuff, such as actually doing real research, finding sources, and this is the important part: actually using those sources to improve the article as opposed to just using them for tactical purposes to "win" at AFD. Those people should be encouraged to keep up their good work, while at the same time those who just do a Google search and add anything they can find to the AFD and/or the article without checking to see if the source has any real value need to be discouraged.

How to do that? As has been suggested before the best way is to join the ARS. It's a wikiproject, there are no barriers to joining, you don't have to be a radical inclusionist like the users causing the poor perception of this project, you just have to want to improve Wikipedia, and don't we all want that? If enough users join up who don't exhibit these problematic behaviors, the whole tone of the project will change, users who cause disruption instead of actually working on articles will be shunned, articles will get improved, the project will do what it was intended to do, and we won't need the torches and the pitchforks. The best way to force this change is from inside, not out. It's a win/win for the project and the encyclopedia as a whole.

Support

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Well said. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Indeed! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Of course. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
6. A noninclusionist, nondeletionist member. Jojalozzo 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
7. I always appreciate calm reason. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Rationality is always appreciated (or should be, anyway). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Thank you. It's much more fun (and less work) to use RFCs to make annihilating attacks though, so I don't expect this very sensible proposal will gain much real world traction. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

I mean actually participate in trying to find real, usable sources for articles identified as needing rescuing, and, in those cases where such sources cannot be located, be blunt with the members about the reality of the situation. Your abortion analogy only makes sense if you buy into the nonsensical theory that there really is a philosophical struggle of great importance at play here, a theory which I reject utterly. This is a project that has always drawn the most extreme to it, extreme inclusionists because they don't want anything deleted if it was mentioned once in a high school paper, and so-called deletionists because they want to criticize or even destroy it.

Neither of those positions is in line with mainstream users of Wikipedia, most of whom prefer to take each article on a case-by-case basis and delete it only if it really cannot be demonstrated to be about a notable subject. If more mainstream users join the project, the project will become more mainstream and the extremists will be seen as what they really already are, individuals who don't actually speak for this group. It's just that the current group is small enough that this minority is able to hijack its voice and represent it as something it is not, or at least should not be. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While I respect the sentiment, it is not entirely practical. Some cases listed at AfD are not really a question of sourcing (cases of WP:NOT for instance) and several of those have ended up getting tagged or listed by the ARS, including the one that first brought them to my attention. Other times it is not a simple matter of "keep" or "delete" as "merge" is an effective option. They are not always simple cases either. The grey areas are where the ARS is most decisive, and also the ones where canvassing can cause the most damage. Honestly, I think there is need for a big change with AfD given the concerns some ARS members and supporters have expressed, but that is what needs to be done. If the system is broken, the solution is not to make it even more broken until people get the point. AfD should probably be seen less as a procedure for sanctions on an article and more as a form of dispute resolution regarding its contents. The former mindset feeds into this kind of activity where people think there is a need to find people who will vote a certain way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem:

• has always drawn the most extreme to it, extreme inclusionists because they don't want anything deleted
• If more mainstream users join the project, the project will become more mainstream

As an outsider, who isn't familiar with the current operations of the project, I see those comments as somewhat disturbing.

As for people joining the project, they join the projects that they are interested in. If the project is so extreme as to frighten people off from joining, then that is problematic. But not everybody is up for ARS type work... there are different people each with different skills/attributes that come to WP and contribute where they are needed and beneficial. They should not have to join a project to reform it.99.18.172.100 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal from Michael Q. Schmidt

I propose that we finally convert the ARS Rescue List into a proper delsort to bring it more in line with other existng wikiprojects... and as a delsort offering transparency, it will no more be "canvassing" than is any other project's delsort. If this RFC was created as the result of the behavior of a few typical or atypical individuals, then we discuss those individuals and their behavior in another forum, rather than take an entire project to task for perceptions over the actions and words of a few. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And a note, due to past events where ARS members were targeted simply because of that userbox banner they placed on their userpage, I decided to retain my membership while instead creating a differnt userbox which can be seen on my userpage... among others for other projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Great idea, we have dozens (hundreds?) of delsort lists, we should absolutely make this one of them and treat it like any other. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Yup, hundreds. As below in comments, discussions curently at the non-standard ARS Rescue List can be moved to their talk page and the current list can be transcluded properly to a real ARS Delsort. On the ARS talk page editors who will benefit from education can be singled out for schooling about the what and why and how to actually improve articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. A good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
4. MQS proposes something very reasonable and fair here. It would reduce many of the problems, perceived and real. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
5. This may be the only practical and actionable advice I've yet to read in this discussion, and would solve all drama instantly. It would be simpler to implement and get rolling than my more elaborate proposal. Convert the list to the existing accepted standard format. Diego (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
6. This is such a naturally good call that it verges on being obvious. Yes. This. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

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

   Not at all suggesting liqudation. If article currently on their ARS Rescue List is at AFD, then we add those articles to a proper and neutral delsort list. The discussions currently on the ARS Rescue List are then moved to their ARS talk page so ARS editors might still share and discuss article issues and concerns transparently. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Nope. The current "list" is simply a set of discussions or requests for rescue and not a proper delsort. Discussions are best served on the project's talk page. Artcles at AFD are best served by being in proper delsorts. I propose to separate the two to elminate future issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

No recomendation for liquidation from me. Create the proper and neutral delsort to emmulate other projects. Move the various discussions from their "rescue list" to the project's talk page where they belong. Put the ARS to work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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

That exists already: {{subst:Rescue list}}. Goodvac (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I was never informed that User:BrownHairedGirl created this last month.[33] Do we have the delsort page for this as well? And cautions about how and when the template can or should be used? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And to note: I do see that the template links back to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list, but that page itself does not resemble the more common delsort pages that simply list articles of interest to their various projects. If THAT inconsistancy is addressed, we have a winner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Support Discussions curently at the misformed ARS Delsort can be moved to their talk page and the current list can be transcluded properly. On the ARS talk page editors who will benefit from education can be singled out for schooling about the what and why and how to actually improve articles. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to transclude the AfDs tagged with rescue list?Diego (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

All this talk about "it would be just another delsort" is completely ignoring a huge chunk of the concerns being noted above. Notifying people interested in movies that an article about a movie is being nominated for deletion doesn't inherently bias the discussion towards any specific outcome. However, notifying people at a project page that is biased towards inclusion is an entirely different matter. The suggestion is that the ARS move away from voting at AfD and more towards improving articles, but this suggestion is going in the exact opposite direction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This delsort is for notifying people interested in Wikipedia guidelines of a discussion where the applicability of existing guidelines is unclear. That doesn't preclude nor bias towards any specific outcome, since anybody following the list will have their own interpretations of how guidelines should be interpreted, and everybody is free to follow the list whether they agree with the project goals or not, and everybody is free to join the project and change its goals. Your suggestion that ARS move away from voting while its members may participate in discussions is not even logically sound, because the ARS is made by particular individuals. Diego (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposal from Hut 8.5

The problems with the ARS - including the allegations of canvassing - derive from something more fundamental: the group's aims. The purpose of the Squadron is to get stuff kept at AfD. Nowhere on the project's page is the rescuer urged to even consider whether the deletion nomination might be valid, and if an ARS member were to !vote Delete at an AfD for an article marked for rescue they would not be acting in their capacity as a member of the ARS. While such behaviour may be justifiable (when done on content that really should be kept, for instance, it's fine) it is easy to see how this philosophy could lead to some members trying to use whatever methods necessary to get as much content kept as possible.

Compare this to other Wikiprojects that have been mentioned. Unreferenced BLP rescue, which I participated in, was there for the purpose of emptying Category:Unreferenced BLPs, a task in which it eventually succeeded. Members had no problem with sending articles through the deletion process if no references could be found, and the project's efforts resulted in hundreds of articles being deleted. Wikiproject Notability is there to empty Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, but members are taught to evaluate the notability of the article subject and act accordingly, rather than trying to get as many as possible deleted or kept.

My proposal for the ARS is simple: turn it into a project which aims to ensure the right decision is made in deletion discussions which are brought to its attention. This is a worthy aim, since there are many AfDs which would benefit from wider scrutiny, especially from editors with substantial experience in the deletion process. There would be no reason why our less inclusionist editors could not join such a project, which would remove concerns about partisanship. And any concerns about canvassing would be greatly reduced since bringing an AfD to the project's attention would not make one outcome more likely. Hut 8.5 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Hut 8.5 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. --Yaksar (let's chat) 00:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The editor misunderstands the fundamental purpose of the ARS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I think the sentiment is just, but there is a fundamental misconception here. ARS is about sourcing out what can be sourced out and saving what can be saved. Closing administrators are not supposed to count votes, they are supposed to weigh arguments. If all Administrators did their jobs properly, as most of them usually do, all this "canvassing" nonsense would be exposed for what it is — a bogeyman believed to be under the bed that isn't really there. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As TDA rightly points out several times here, canvassing has nothing to do with the result. Whether administrators properly do their job or not is entirely beside the point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I find the premise of this to be flawed, so I'm a tad confused. Reading the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, it is clear that the aims of the group are to keep notable articles. The fundamental premise of the ARS seems to be that some articles are notable but in a poor state, and that therefore they should be improved rather than deleted. This doesn't seem to correlate to the claim above that the ARS (as a project) believes that all articles need to be saved, irrespective of encyclopedic value or notability. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The difficulty is that when you are selective, as is the ARS, in saying that your role is to save articles that are notable, then there is an extension by which you are not there to save articles which are not notable. So the ARS doesn't serve to automatically state keep, but it is, by its aims, supposed to evaluate articles and act to keep those which meet the notability requirements.

Your assumption that an ARS member will never vote delete is, I think, unsound. I see no reason why a member shouldn't vote to delete an article - nothing in the ARS's description suggests that it is opposed to deleting articles, only to deleting articles which are encyclopedic and meet the notability requirements. So anyone voting delete in regard to articles which fail those requirements are not acting against the ARS, but simply outside of its area of concern. They would only be acting against the aims of the ARS if they voted to delete an encyclopedic or notable article, where such could be established to be the case. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the ARS's description which states that members should oppose deleting articles, no, but equally there's nothing in there which suggests that members should !vote to delete articles where the deletion nomination is valid. I'm aware that's "not its area of concern", that's what I'm proposing to change. Hut 8.5 16:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's where the problem comes in. Given that there is nothing in the ARS to say that it is wrong to argue to delete non-notable articles, I can't see an argument as to why the ARS should increase its remit to actively delete articles. I guess what you are asking for is a project dedicated to deleting and saving articles, but in a sense, that would be what AfD already is. - Bilby (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)