Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

 Main page Rescue list Current articles Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Discussion page 

Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.

ARS in the discussions

Talk:Performance (textiles) SOSDD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion that concerns WP:ARS

I received notice of a discussion. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's possible, ARS may end up like WP:MEDCOM & WP:RFC/U, which would likely require an RFC at the appropriate Village Pump page. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI continues

Sigh. Here Riding a rail. A story attributed to Abraham Lincoln has him quoting a victim of being ridden out of town on a rail as having said, "If it weren't for the honor of the thing, I'd just as soon it happened to someone else." Seriously. Walls of text on this project and various editors. An existential attack on WP:ARS. Review and comment if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• • Maybe if you hadn’t been harboring a personality cult around perennially disruptive and uncivil user Andrew “The Colonel” Davidson we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Collegialithy and respect is a two way street. Just food for thought.

But we have not asked to discipline or disband or silence you or your compatriots. We did not go to WP:ANI.

You've already said your pieces at that page.

But censorship is something I oppose on principle. So feel free to contribute here, as far as I'm concerned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• • My “compatriots” are an imaginary wiki-cabal. Yours are running this very project which everyone’s fighting about. Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The ANI report, is the first time I've heard about ARS. I sometimes participate in AfD, MfD etc, etc. Personally, I've never felt any hostility (to my memory) from any editors, who didn't 'vote' the way I did. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Not winners and losers. Full discussion and review helps. And when there is an outcome, one lives with it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron

Recently I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia 'rescuing' articles that have been put up for deletion too hastily. During this time, I have been aware of the ARS but I have not joined the project. ARS seems to just focus on responding to WP:AfD discussions, with participants highlighting the discussions that they feel warrant attention. There are of course already compilations of pages up for deletion on Wikipedia and putting the spotlight on specific discussions seemed a little pointless.

The current debate at WP:ANI has revealed that this approach is problematic and has given some editors a negative impression of the project. I think that this project could be used in a much more positive way.

Proposal

Remove most if not all of the deletion related (particularly AfD) content from the main project pages. ARS should be about rescuing articles about notable topics that require attention. Whether the article is up for deletion does not need to come into it.

In the future it would be great if the ARS could become part of the WP:BEFORE process as an WP:ATD, where editors who find an article that is not good enough in its current form, but that might be notable, could nominate it for improvement instead of deletion. There are plenty of articles that are nominated for deletion solely because they don't have sufficient references or are written badly. If this project collaborated with nominators more effectively articles could be sent here directly.

If there is consensus for this course of action I would be happy to join the project and help to enact this proposal! SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I self censor my votes. If I run across an AFD nomination, and I can't add sources and/or don't think it should be kept, I do not vote. My voting record will support that, and actually prove that most of the articles on which I vote are in fact kept. And it ordinarily is because the articles were improved, which is the basic point of WP:ARS. That it was kept and improved is a net plus for Wikipedia.

Purging the article improvers for a tactical advantage at AFDs is not in the long term best interests of Wikipedia.

Purging those who vote Keep at AFD and provide reasons (e.g., Andrew and Lightburst at the discussions; and 7&6=thirteen by improving the text and sourcing in the article itelf, and then linking at the AFD to to the improvement) does not help the AFD process produce a principled result.

If there is a consensus ot delete or merge, so be it. reasonable minds may differ. YMMV.

Stifling voices with a prior restraint and purge of those with whom you disagree is bad for the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - part 2

It may also be good etiquette for ARS members who find an AfD through the project, and go on to improve the article, to not vote in the discussion. They could just leave a comment that the article has been improved by the ARS. Improving an article normally triggers a vote 'reset' at AfD anyway and significantly improved articles are often kept. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the complaining involves articles that were not listed at WP:ARS. When it is not listed, there is no requirement for anyone to put the discussion listiing template in at the AFD.

Because of the sabotage of ARS listings by trollish behavior of some editors (they made the same arguments at the AFD pages) the number of listed articles has been in steady decline.

Listing at WP:ARS is like ringing the dinner bell for the Great White Sharks (Chumming the water so to speak) who then pounce on an AFD they might have overlooked. And thus seek to delete the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

This is brainstorming. Find articles that were deleted months or years ago (eg. Deletionwiki) and redo from scratch -- if warranted. Advantages: gives time for the old AfD to cool off. Essentially same as HEY during an AfD, but doesn't trigger ire in the middle of an AfD. Doesn't require AfD participation which has negatives for attendees when done too often. Gives unlimited time to work on draft no 30-day window. Can have 100s open and working on at once. Could optionally work offline and move into Wiki if ready. Optionally use AfC for neutral approval. In the end, achieves same result as current ARS, only change is process. Only works if new article is HEY-level improvement. -- GreenC 03:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion 4

One thing I've never understood is the interest in "rescuing" deleted or about-to-be deleted articles. Like Big John (dinosaur). Who cares about Big John? Why do people put so much effort into an article like that, yet those same people don't put effort into an article like Dinosaur or Triceratops. Many, many more readers read the Dinosaur article (100k page views) than Big John (dinosaur) (less than 2k). Who gives a damn if Big John has its own page, or is just listed on a list of fossils... why put so much effort into something of so little notability and interest while ignoring the much more important related article? It makes no sense to me. There are so many articles that aren't deleted that need improvement.

Nothing important is lost when these marginally-notable articles get deleted. Deletion doesn't erase knowledge, it just moves it to a different page. If Big John (dinosaur) were deleted, it's not like Wikipedia would not cover Big John, or some meaningful information about dinosaurs would be lost to the world. It would just be on a different page. Why fight it so hard? Editors get themselves sanctioned fighting to save a tiny hill (Big John) but totally ignore the giant mountain (Dinosaur). The thing everyone can do to help is to improve articles that people actually read, instead of being so focused on stopping or undoing deletion.

In other words, stop trying to rescue articles as if "articles" were something special. As if a web page merited rescuing. That it's a separate article, or a separate web page, is just a feature of an organization system. It's the content that matters not the web page. Instead of rescuing articles, rescue content, no matter what page it's on. Did Big John (dinosaur) get deleted? Then let's make sure Big John is covered well on the appropriate page. Don't fight tooth and nail with your colleagues over how the encyclopedia is organized (what info is on a separate page and what info is merged on the same page): instead, work to preserve the content itself rather than the organizational structure of the content. Levivich 14:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Conversely, who cares that there is an article at Big John (dinosaur), so that these deletion discussions go on for days and pages. One thing I've never understood is the interest in deleting articles when there are lots of WP:RS sources and there is interest in the readership communnity. Easily meets WP:GNG. WP:Preserve. AFD notices have links to all those souces for a reason. WP:Before should be done well, not pro forma. And article was improved substantially, showing the noncompliance. The weight of the verbiage on this "tiny hill" was posted by those favoring delete. And they put in a lot of effort to do it, and engaged in WP:Personal attacks. There was no harm in having this article. You should have given in to reason and effort.

Article was kept. Ignoring the article's improvements and turning this all into the Wikipedia equivalent of trench warfare accomplished ... a lot of wasted editor time.

Take your own advice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

For me the problem with articles like Big John (dinosaur) is that they get to down into the weeds with minutiae, often to the point of being hard to read and dull. All just so some ARS member can get a win against the other side. Articles should be a summary of the topic. Not a mini dissertation on nonsense that no one outside of a paleontologists cares about, like how complete each individual bone of the dinosaur is. Otherwise, there's nothing that separates the Wikipedia from the original source and your just going through the motions of creating generic articles to score points. Like the Big John article says "The skeleton measured 3 metres high and 8 metres long" and the reference the information comes from says "Those bones form a skeleton 8m long by 3m high." At that point there's literally zero difference between the Wikipedia article and the original source, but at least there's an article "shrug." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel your pain. But WP:I don't like it is not a reason to delete. Too many notes.

The honorable thing for a deletion nominator to do when an article was improved and the nomination proves to have been improvidently made, is to withdraw the nomination. See here. There is no shame in admitting a mistake was made, or that your view of the world has changed now that you are better informed. Not dig in. There is good lesson there. If that happened more, there would be reciprocity. Instead, we are treated to walls of text repeating and repeating and then echoing and reechoing the same arguments in a single discussion. Why?

We are all on the same team. This is not a win/lose Zero sum game; wikipedia is enhanced by artile improvement, even it is done as the byproduct of an AFD. We have a symbiotic relationship. Unfortunately, there are those out there who believe that dissension deserves a WP:death penalty.

Nobody from WP:ARS has invoked WP:ANI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Both sides in a WP:AFD ought to say their piece, and then move on.

Both sides in a WP:AFD ought to remember that WP:AGF is essential.

I would explain that mentioning WP:Before is not a personal attack. To be sure, a nominator may have done a search, but a failure to uncover/discover extant sources (perhaps because of ineptitude, incompetence, laziness or other distraction) is fair game. This becomes relatively self evident when the article has been vastly improved.

Likewise, when an article and its sourcing is improved, WP:HEY can be used. Obviously, not everyone may agree on its applicability, so that can be discussed.

We will not all agree on anything. Diversity of viewpoint and perspective is one of Wikipedia's strengths. You should revel in it, and foster it for the betterment of the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the ANI stuff could have been avoided if specific ARS members had of admitted to their mistakes from the start. Lightburst did, but it was a little to late. Although I still commend him for doing so. Even though he went off the rails later in the ArbCom complaint, but I understand where he's coming from. In the meantime it's nonsense to say nobody from WP:ARS invoked WP:ANI. That's because no one from ARS has the social capital to. Andrew was blocked due to a 25/4 "vote." So no one would have taken an ANI complaint from him seriously if he had of filed one. That said, he did lobby for me to be blocked and for my edits to be revert several times. So it's not like you all prefer the moral high ground or whatever. Also, WP:Before is a personal attack when the nominator said they did one and you are still calling them out about it. Either way though, there's zero point in even bringing it up the first place. It makes absolutely no difference to the AfD and just makes things needlessly contentious. Even if that's not your intent. So why even bother with it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Invocation of policy does not amount to a personal attack. You may have thought you did it, but it was poorly done. I have been personally attacked for mentioning WP:Before. The subjective reaction by the draftor of a poorly considered AFD is no reason to expunge that fact. Noncompliance with WP:Before ought not to be censored.

I would be the first to acknowledge that an AFD nominator may have tried to do a search before the nomination, and have a good faith belief in the righeousness of their cause. But whether they did if effectively or not is a straight question of fact and appliction of the policy to the evidence.

Sorry that you are that thin-skinned, even at its mention. I was not here directing it at you. This was always context dependent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about me. That said, I find it pretty funny that your calling me thin skinned considering how your attitude has been about this and the friends you keep. Anyway, it depends on how it's done. For instance in Articles_for_deletion/Daniella_van_Graas you were pretty harsh to the nominator about them not doing a BEFORE. Even after the nominator and another user told you multiple times that they did one. Nowhere in that conversation were you just saying the WP:Before was poorly done and no one is trying to censor you by saying such behavior is disruptive to the process.

If you want my honest opinion about it, I just see the whole WP:Before thing as a petty, lazy, and infective tactic to try and poison the well. Ultimately its just nonsensical noise. Which seems to be the point to it. Since I think a lot of ARS member's tactics revolve around adding noise to AfD discussions in order derail them. Anytime there's a contentious 6 message long back and forth about the minutia of certain policies it's a discussion that is much harder to read over and isn't about the article. Which is usually a win for you guys. At least in the short term. In the long-term it leads to ARS members being blocked, but such is life. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So you say that Daniella van Graas shows that they did an effective search? You have your opinion. I have mine. Truth ought to have some relevance here.

And yes, you are showing us your power. Not good judgment. Bad policy. Own it and live with it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No I'm saying that you acted disruptively about it. Own it and live with it dude. It's almost like you think you and other ARS members don't have any social agency in any of this. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No point in disputing the opinion of the true believer. We will have to agree to disagree. The article was kept. Over and out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

What exactly am I true believer of? Or are you saying your one? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Figure it out.

I was trying to make suggestions and react to suggestions to fix the problem, not fix the blame.

This dispute has been going on for years. Penalties, threats and confrontation have not worked.

We need to try Alternate dispute resolution, and mutually find an agreeable solution that will address the full panoply of the problems.

If you think that WP:ARS was the only part of the problem that needs fixing, you need to think again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(Levivich) As we 'now' know, Big John survived his AfD. I 'voted' for his deletion, but it ain't bugging me that he was kept. Perhaps that's the key, when participating in an AfD. Be cool, ignore any bludgeoning against you & don't let it faze you, if the AfD doesn't turn out the way you hoped it would have. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

AfD is a good example of a modern day honor culture, which contrasts with cultures of law. AfD was meant to be a culture of law, but there is so much leeway over notability and reliable sources, plus inconsistency in closing and drv, it has become an honor culture. In honor cultures, reputation is everything, and anyone who besmirches one's reputation requires a strong response to maintain one's credibility. Blood and family feuds, duels, fights and wars are common. Law enforcement has trouble dealing with it. The solution to honor cultures is strong law enforcement, something that seems beyond the capabilities of admins due in part to the large number of AfDs (a territory hard to enforce, due to geography or other reasons, is another characteristic of honor cultures). -- GreenC 05:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty coherent analysis. I put it as much on the ambiguity of the notability guidelines as I anything else though. There's to many topics that either don't have specific notability guidelines or they contradict themselves and the wider ones. The way to make AfD a sane process is for both sides to come together and clarify the notability guidelines in a way that deals with the their ambiguity. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Quite Frankly I’d support any and all alternative outlets for ARS to pursue that don’t involve AfD participation, which is how this whole fiasco got started. Everything that can be done to veer this away from ultra-inclusionist canvassing antics is a net positive in my view. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not to concerned with ARS being involved in AfDs, but it just shouldn't be their main thing. There's merit in having a non subject specific article improvement project. I don't see why ARS can't do it. There just has to be some reforms first. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Whatever happens. Your toes are still tappin". -- GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Remediation of problematic deprods by Andrew Davidson

The recent ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic was closed after discussion died down. One of the outcomes was to topic ban Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) from deletion-related activities due to chronic problems at AfD and deprodding low-quality articles without explanation. The one who proposed this sanction, Piotrus (talk · contribs), provided a handy link that lists all generic deprods by Andrew D on articles that haven't been deleted. I'd recommend going through this list to identify pages that could be sent to AfD after that; I've already identified List of largest megalopolises, Strange but true, and List of Algonquin Chiefs among the most recent ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Would there be a way to copy this into a project subpage so we can mark the ones that are already checked, deleted or redirected? –dlthewave ☎ 04:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As a side to this, I was just looking through the old AfDs that are listed at ARS and also ended in no-consensus. A large amount of them have completely nonsensical block voting and bickering over clearly trivial sources by ARS members. So it might be worth relisting the more contentious ones to see if there can be clearer outcomes with them now. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Is ARS still here?

Is ARS still active? I'd like to help keep notable topics safe while avoiding the pitfalls of previous editors, which included vote-stacking and opposition to all deletions as opposed to only those which could be prevented via editing. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've been gaslighted. There was no "vote stacking". There has consistently been article improvement. And there are those who want to limit reasoned comments (such as citations to relevant articles), comments about WP:Before. They want to silence anyone who doesn't reflect their predilections for deletion and redirection, which are deemed by them to be the only acceptable votes at AFDs. And the claim that there are automatic votes of Keep is wrong. I have always self censored, added content and sources, and not voted if I could not in good conscience vote. If I am involved, there is a real likelihood that the article will be kept. And that is because I improve articles.

That I ordinarily vote Keep and that articles are then kept should not be taken as a sign of error or prejudice. Nor a sign of vote stacking. If articles are improved as a result of an AFD, so that the nomination is now wrong, isn't that a net positive for Wikipedia?

I've taken a lot of proposed deletions on through to the main page via WP:DYK.

There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs. And euthanize WP:ARS. There have been several attempts to shut us down at WP:ANI (nine times, see above), and they have gleefully partipated. Caveat lector.

You need to separate wheat from the chaff.

It is understood that your participation may involve ostracism. Forewarned is forearmed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander. Doesn’t exactly make it seem like this ISN’T a partisan organization. Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ignore 13 Plutonical, the complaints against certain ARS members were generally valid and they’re just trying to drag you into the Wikimedia culture wars and inflate their persecution complex. If you’d like to participate then great, ARS needs more users who are willing to improve neglected articles and not storm into AfD ranting about the Deletionist cabal destroying Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:Plutonical Ignore Dronebogus whose hosility is well demonstrated and constant. His remarks were expected. He is a wolf in sheep's clothes. While he claims to be here to help WP:ARS, his actions say otherwise. His declaration of ARS's demise are premature.
  

To be sure, I know that the members of the Inquisition said they were there only to help Jean d'Arc and save her immortal soul.

Make up your own mind and use your common sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Not helping your case. I figure it’s onto Godwinning next. Your paranoid hostility, combined with the fact that you can only see ARS as a way to fight rival wiki factions and anyone else who doesn’t agree with your hardline inclusionism, is going to do more to destroy it than I ever could. Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Figure it out. Hostility and hollow threats. Deliberate WP:Disruption of the project. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • You’re the disruptive one and those “threats” about taking you to ANI over it aren’t hollow as you’re going to see in a moment. Dronebogus (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IF ARS is 'ever' re-nominated for deletion, would someone 'please' ping me? PS - This request removes any accusations of WP:CANVASS, against the editor who does ping me. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW - Is there an anti-ARS project? If so, then ping me about that one too, if it's nominated for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Lovenote from User:Dronebogus involving me and WP:ARS I suppose

There’s a discussion that involves you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#7&6=thirteen%E2%80%99s_behavior_hasn%E2%80%99t_improved Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The firearms are on the table for all to see. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)