Note, so this thread makes sense, I changed the photo from a dragon to fire based on were's excellent suggestion. Ikip02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've already got two userboxes based on those colours and that dragon, and I'd rather people didn't confuse the two petitions, may I proffer an alternative?
(ec) Jclemens has a point - I suggest moving this thread to talk:Ikip where basepagename will come up with Ikip signing the userbox. ϢereSpielChequers01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Rescue Squadron now links to old AFD, not 2nd nomination
At Dope Stars Inc. when you click the AFD link in the Rescue banner, it brings you to the first nomination, not the current one. "This article has been flagged for rescue. Please review the deletion discussion(wrong link here)..." Can a bot be made to find wherever the Rescue tag is added, and then check on that page to see where the AFD nomination links to, and correct this? DreamFocus06:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I looked on the page, but I didn't see how to do that. I'll edit the main article page to explain how to do this then. Thanks. DreamFocus06:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, nice job Flatscan! Go ahead and be bold and replace the existing one with yours, we can always revert and discuss. Again, nice job!Ikip05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
opps, I should look at the page before I comment, this is a script editors will have to install themselves -- thanks! Ikip05:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
A couple of editors - nay admins - fresh from their triumph in getting an article about me deleted against the advice of notable scientists etc.. are now working to change WP:AUTHOR - perhaps to retospectively legitimise thier stance. Others, not involved in this particular tussle, might want to comment. NBeale (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, NBeale: I know you think Wikipedia revolves around you, but you should really check the discussion that you're referencing. Only one change has been made (removing the clause about libraries), and that was proposed before your article went to AfD, by an editor who never had any involvement with it. So don't try to paint this as if people are ganging up on you when it really has nothing to do with you. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs10:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed, yes, but made by someone else on 23-Jan, curiously the day after the NB AfD closed (see here for background if anyone is interested). We should both step back from this and see what other people think about the substance of the (proposed) changes. NBeale (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that changing the criteria on which an article is to be kept is an issue that impinges on our work as ARS members. NBeale (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It would impinge upon all editors. There has been criticism of the ARS in the past of acting as a "general inclusionists noticeboard" rather than focussing on rescuing improvable articles which are up for deletion. pablohablo.15:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. That discussion there seems a bit heated and personalized. I suggest starting an RfC if it seems more eyes are actually needed. Notability discussions are definitely of interest here because our core focus is evaluating if content should be included or not, in what form(s) and by what policies. If the inclusion guideline is changing obviously that will change whether articles at AfD can be kept via that guideline. We've been down this path before and advice to NBeale, you started off this thread as basically canvassing one position in a discussion. That compromised the rest (poisoned the well) because it becomes about you rather than the discussion itself. Consider this a lesson learned and hopefully the best decision will be made there. -- Banjeboi07:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Add Project tags and get projects involved
One way to rescue an article is to bring it to the attention of relevant projects by adding the appropriate project tags to the talkpage. This is especially true of our current unreferenced BLP problem as some projects have signed up to User:WolterBot which reports various maintenance problems to projects. Can I suggest that ARS members who are also active in other projects have a look at Wolterbot and see if it would be useful to their project?
Bringing relevant at risk articles to the attention of the projects most likely to care about them and be familiar with relevant sources, is a way to break the task into more manageable chunks. ϢereSpielChequers11:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Building a tool to scrape all unreferenced BLPs and give all google results
I got it to work! my AFD tool that TodWulff built for me.
Notice how it has google results listed? Now all i need to do it change it to the biography pages, which may take a couple of days for me to figure out....since Tod is MIA. Ikip03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I was recently pointed to the Article Rescue Squadron by the dedicated User:Ikip. I am glad I came. There are a few matters I wish to get comment on:
I strongly suggest that the Squadron elect or appoint a Coordinator. The Squadron needs a visible public face who can work well with others in representing the Squadron's positions on inclusiveness. The recent BLP fiasco demonstrates the need for a Coordinator to (a) represent the Squadron in public fora and (b) coordinate the activities of the Squadron members.
FWIW, most prominent members here have been subject to some rather blatant offsite harassment campaigning so I disagree that having one spokesperson would either be effective or enduring. They, sadly, would just be the latest to endure rather short-sighted efforts to undermine their work. Also Each editor basically speaks their own mind on issues and doesn't speak for the group. Usually a steward of a wikiproject is more about the busywork behind the scenes rather than being a public figurehead. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone claim to speak for a Wikiproject, instead folks simply post on a project's talkpage of items that the group is likely to be interested in. Ikip likely can speak to the list of prods. Personally i'm expected an uptick in AfDs/rescues coming as well. -- Banjeboi07:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If this is necessary, and I don't see it being necessary right now, I think User:MichaelQSchmidt would be a good candidate, he is the most even tempered of the long term editors here. Short term editors would be Were... despite his views on flagged revisions :(
Jkalmar, convince me, please, I always like to hear new ideas (Jo4n's ideas have been invaluable):
"The recent BLP fiasco demonstrates the need for a Coordinator to (a) represent the Squadron in public fora and (b) coordinate the activities of the Squadron members."
How? I look forward to hearing your ideas.
"Has a comprehensive list of the unilaterally deleted BLP's been created."
Yes, I created it with the help of another editor above. (he compiled it) I made it into a pretty table: WP:ARS (oh you know about that)
You are welcome to take over WP:ARS/BLP in anyway you see fit JKalmar.
I apologize for taking a few days to get back to this discussion. I appreciate the comments regarding the negative effects of having a coordinator. My thought on the matter was twofold: the Wikiproject coordinators (and similar roles, such as the Mediation Committee's chairperson) have served to help coordinate the project and to form act as a central representative voice for the specific community subset in urgent matters. But if that is not needed here, I can appreciate that as well. — James F Kalmar21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The Community Health task force proposed that a survey be given to former contributors to fill out in order to better understand why they are no longer editing.
Information from this survey can help us better understand user editing experiences and might be useful for developing a better experience for new editors so they get off to a good start, and stick around and improve their articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
that is so awesome, I am so glad you brought this to everyone's attention, it is something that I have wanted to do also. Ikip20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Are the rescue tags sacred? Is there a process for removing a rescue tag if an editor deems an article unworthy? Or is there no such thing as a bad rescue tag? This comes up because Xenognosticism seems to me to be pure OR. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Rescue tags are not sacred. However ARS feels that it is generaly unproductive to remove them. You say that Xenognosticism is pure OR, that might very well be so, but do you actually know this? Do you have an overview over all the sources that the topic could be treated in? That said, Xenognosticism is bordering to beeing speediable under CSD#A1. Taemyr (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Removal of a rescue tag is often unproductive. Demonstrating the lack of sources (e.g., failed Google searches) in the AfD is usually sufficient. There are a few inclusionists who will !vote keep on anything they notice, but they don't have any grand impact on AfD outcomes. On balance, the folks who look at the list of potential rescues will not lobby to keep a hopeless case, instead preferring to spend time on articles where the current state can easily be seen to be inferior to an expected state using available sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to this but have search for the way to save my article Andre Spooner that is on the line to be deleted, I think I have added enough sources but they would like more, can you please help? Many thanks to you all Coffeepot101 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your article appears to be a hoax; Andre Spooner comments on the Argus website [1], [2], however he does not appear to be a 'journalist' in any widely-accepted sense of the word. The wording of the article is a further clue. The 'references' aren't references or even links to news stories written by Andre Spooner, they link to news stories where Andre Spooner has commented (as anyone with an internet connection can). pablohablo.16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
yes, for now we have to manually add them. (which is no big deal, since there are only 17 at a time) Later we can request a bot. I already have two bot requests in, so I don't want to overload them.
...so the list of articles which are tagged for referencing are in the template itself.
In a day or two I will make this collapsible list customizable. This collapsible list will show the type of articles an editor wants to reference first. This is possible by the use of categories, described in the last section. Okip (formerly Ikip)17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Very clever. Only thing I am reluctant to use the box as I think some people will think I'm an inclusionist(which isn't true because I nominate my fair share of articles to be deleted as well). SunCreator (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If an article has been deleted purely because it is an unsourced Bio, and you are willing to reference it, then I am one of the admins who is willing to restore it. ϢereSpielChequers23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is one, Alan Giles, that could be easily sourced, and had no controversial content, if restored to me. As could be David Freiberg. Those are just the first two I found! Looking farther into the mayhem, i noticed this admin restoration of one deleted by Scott McDonald: "Frank Andersson" (45 revisions restored: an olympic medallist for fuck's sake)"--Milowent (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring Alan Giles and David Freiberg they how have sources added. The next random deleted ones I looked into are Morton Gurtin (2004 Timoshenko Medal winner, the highest award one can receive in applied mechanics), Cathy Greene (non-contentious actress bio, imdb and other sources easily would eliminated "unreferenced" concern), Christina Dieckmann (former Miss World Venezuela, all of whom have articles, completely non-contentious bio--its amazing how random these deletions are, poking little holes in huge organized swaths of the project), Elly Dekker (Caird award winner, whatever that is, but sourceable for the little and wholly non-contentious content it contained), Sébastien Charpentier (motorcycle racer) (apparently a world champion for two years in his sport, as the first google hit told me), John Bucklaschuk (Canadian politician, cabinet minister in the 1980s), David Blum (fairly well-known journalist, I recognized the name immediately, former editor-in-chief of The Village Voice, among other roles), etc. etc. etc.--Milowent (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yesterday I restored Frank Andersson, an Olympic medallist and winner of Sweden's most prestigious sporting award; Tarja Filatov, a member of the Finnish cabinet; Birthe Kjær, a Danish Eurovision entrant; and Judith St. George, American author who won the Caldecott Medal; along with others. These were all easy to source. If anyone is interested I am making a list at User:The wub/Lazarus of deleted BLP articles. This has information like inbound links and other language versions, that could help prioritise sourcing work rather than picking at random. Tomorrow I plan to add more that were deleted by other admins. the wub"?!"20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What do we think about having different volunteers to do different categories? I'm happy to work on musicians, actually just asked the wub to userfy 5 of them to me. I'm sure between us all we could hit most categories and get more done if we're only looking at the types of articles that we are used to dealing with. J04n(talk page)21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with splitting up however it makes sense. I can take some from whatever categories are unclaimed. There's little rhyme or reason to the deletions.--Milowent (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a autohotkey tool (big page loads slowly, see red boxes) which scraped google and gave number totals for scholar, book and news. I can work with another editor to restore and adapt this. It is very easy to see at a glance (in some cases), if an editor has no google hits.
I have made a list of those unreferenced BLP articles that got deleted a few days ago. User:Apoc2400/Deletion list. Feel free to use it or send it on to anyone who might have use for it. I have not really followed what happened on the issue since the RfC started, but it seems you have. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Now with Google cache links that might work for a few more days at least. And yes, I do occasionally help out with articles tagged for rescue, so I am aware of the ARS. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I envision a sortable list of all articles deleted and restored, with the most prominent person on top. Frank Andersson, an Olympic athlete is #1 so far.
We can use this list to show that what is happening is wrong. It will not convince those who support this radical change, but it maybe sway others.
Please help us build this contest. Your suggestions are warmly welcome. >> Sign up now. <<
This page just began today, we would love help building this contest and suggestions. You can strongly influence how this contest is built. Okip (formerly Ikip)10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone consider changing the name to Article reference squadron? The name is less exciting, but it is also less contentious. Instead of focusing on "rescuing articles" we can focus on "referencing articles" basically the same thing, but less contentious. Okip (the new and improved Ikip)11:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that rescuing articles is or should be contentious. I suspect that the article rescue template is contentious because some might interpret it as canvassing - and it could indirectly lead to getting extra !votes at AFDs rather than extra assistance at improving an article. I would suggest that rather than rename the project we review the template and the AFD template with a view to merging the two - a better AFD template that gave newbies an easy how to guide as to how to see if their article is notable and if it is how to bring it up to a standard that would get it through AFD would reduce the contentious aspect of the ARS and ultimately rescue far more articles than we currently do. ϢereSpielChequers14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The current name is good, in my opinion. The "rescue" term is a good one and used in good faith, despite occasional bickering from those who less inclusionist-minded.--Milowent (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Rescuing sometimes involves giving reasonable arguments to keep something, to count that of the drive-by deletionists. Not all articles saved, are done by references. Articles are also rescued by rewriting them, or changing the name if that's the only thing people were upset about. Sometimes its just a list article that needs a clear definition for inclusion, to convince people its worth keeping. And the only people who whine about it being canvassing, are those who don't always get their way in the AFD, and want something to fuss about. These people are also often found in other Wikiprojects, that do canvas, asking for help from each other to have their will done. See [3] for the most obvious example of that. DreamFocus19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The idea of reference vs. rescue also dulls the focus on articles currently at AfD. I don't think that's a beneficial focus shift. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I would leave well enough alone. It's like changing who you are because the mean bullies will then stop calling you names. Guess what? They're bullies and will simply make up new names. Just get on with doing quality work and don't pretend we are experts at referencing, that's for the good folks at wp:RSN. -- Banjeboi22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's consider Improvement & Rescue Squad which might then better serve to indicate that our goal is to "improve" articles first as part of an overall attempt of a "rescue"... specially since improvement includes much more than just adding references. We need to be cognizant of needs for expansion or reduction, for cleanup and style, of grammer and wikilinks... of all the various factors that improve an article and make it worthy of the project. With some editors feeling the current title simply encourages a stampede of keeps at AFD, perhaps this acknowledgement that our goal is to "improve" articles would better reflect our contributions. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we really want our initials to be IRS? I think ARS has far fewer negative connotations. :-) More seriously, the only concern I'd have with that is that it might increase confusion about what we work on, that is a) articles which are b) up for deletion. It might sound like we improve any articles or even any categories etc. ...But I can't think of a better one, so I'm happy either way. --Zeborah (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it would be helpful if there was an official explanation of what Jimbo is suggesting to implement, then I would know better if there is a true link. Jimbo assumes common knowledge that is actually known by a small % of wiki editors. But as its being described, edits of regular editors won't appear in articles until approved by some unknown group of approved editors. Some concerns (among many): This sounds like it could severely depress the contributions of casual editors of wikipedia, among whom the idea of 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit' means their edits appear when they make them. Obscure but notable article subjects may thus be harmed. This goes against the core mission of this project, "All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion." A huge policy change which could harm the improvement of some articles (while presumably protecting some others from vandalism) seems relevant for discussion.--Milowent (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That "All too often ... wounded ... bleeding ... think of the children ..." thing probably puts more people off than it attracts. In answer to Fram though - the only significance to this project as far as I can see is if it will make it harder to place the {{rescue}} tag. So probably not. pablohablo.16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that language comes from the project page and its as I found the project when I became interested in actively contributing here. In any event, I don't know why we beat around the bush to ignore that a number of ARS members are inclusionists. There are ardent deletionists who also believe in the virtues of article improvement, of course, but having a talk topic about Jimbo's poll here shouldn't offend, right? Anyhow, its funny that you mention the "rescue" tag, because under flagged revisions, I think the rescue tag would be of much more limited effect, as many potential editors would never see the tag.--Milowent (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The details are still unclear but it seems that the proposal would have a significant effect upon the editing of all articles and so every project should be notified. In the case of the ARS, it seems that there would be a significant impact because the proposal introduces a delay into the editing process. As AFD is run to a strict timetable, the results of article rescue might not be visible in sufficient time. This seems unsatisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As it affects all articles (and all projects) it therefore is not of specific interest to the ARS, to return to the original question. If there were any improvement of a rescue-tagged article, of course those improvements would be visible for editors to review (just not published), which seems satisfactory. pablohablo.21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As the exact details of the putative mechanism are still unclear there is no "of course". If all edits were visible immediately, as they are currently, then there would be no point in the mechanism. The whole point of the scheme is to mask edits in some way. In discussions elsewhere, editors report that, where similar schemes have been tried, they may have to wait days for their good faith edits to be approved. This seems unacceptable for edits made during the 7-day window of AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It will affect all editing equally, including editors who are members of the Article Rescue Squadron in their chosen activities (whether this be placing a {{rescue}} tag, voting at one or many AfDs or even editing an article). It will not affect those editors specifically, or in a different manner to any other editor. pablohablo.23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it would not affect all editing equally as only edits to article space would be affected. This would therefore increase the systemic bias whereby it is easy for editors to make drive-by nominations of articles for deletion in a twinkle or post a per nom but it requires significantly more effort to improve articles by researching and editing in a short time. Such article improvement is performed specifically by ARS editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The word specifically does not mean exclusively. It is a specific characteristic of ARS editors that they improve articles, especially at AFD. Other editors may do this too and that's fine. Numerous editors seem to be opposing the proposal and so the matter may be moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Going back to Colonel Warden's original point, my reading of WP:Flagged revisions#Description and WP:Flagged revisions/fact sheet#Visibility is that all users will be able to see all currently visible (not deleted or oversighted) revisions. It will affect which version is shown by default. It would be an issue if editors were participating at AfD based on the lagged sighted revisions, but that could be addressed by education, documentation, and maybe a temporary addition to the AfD templates. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The most recent "poll" should have been announced on mainpage.. or at the village pump, as it afffects every project and every article contributor, old and new.... specially as there are lots of issues yet to be ironed out before seeking even a "trial" implementation. For instance, the current proposal allows a contribution be autoconfirmed if the author has at least 1 year on board and at least 1000 edits. But strangely, the proposal only requires 3 months on board before one is allowed to vett the edit's of some other newcomer. Seems a bit contradictory if it is seen that 3 months experience allows a new editor to stand in judgement over contibutions of someone who may have 4 times the experience. I would hope this does not then become a series of repeated battle-of-wills among newcomers. Perhaps lowering the bar more realistically for both... allowing one or two months with one or two hundred mainspace contributions in order to qualify for either autoconfirmation or reviewer. May as well level the playingfield. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"The most recent "poll" should have been announced on mainpage.. or at the village pump, as it afffects every project and every article contributor, old and new..." And that's exactly what I did, announcing it at two Village Pump pages, at the Community portal, and at WP:CENT. I don't decide what comes on edit notices or the main page though. 08:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That it will replace (at least for some groups of articles, e.g. BLPs) (semi-)protection, an admin-only tool so far? Also, the rights for people to be a flagger or reviewer or whatever will be granted and revoked by admins. So, this proposal has a clear impact on what admins will have to do or no longer will have to do. What is the impact of this proposal on what ARS'ers (compared to other editors) will have to do or not to do? Fram (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the only difference will be that in some AFD discussions ARS members will need to start saying "please look at the version that includes my latest unflagged change". So not a big difference and one we can easily include here and perhaps in our next newsletter when and if the time comes. ϢereSpielChequers13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems likely that flagger rights will be assigned automatically, like other autoconfirmed rights such as new page patrol, which this resembles. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that such automatic rights assignment has been decided yet. On the German version, there are quite strict automatic granting rights, plus a manual granting process for whoever doesn't meet the automatic requirements (e.g. if you have ever been blocked, you don't get the rights automatically). Admins on the German Wikipedia can always remove the right (contrary to how currently patroller is implemented here). So if we follow the German implementation in this regard, the rights are still of direct inteerst to admins. The overlap with or replacement of protection remains as an argument as well of course. Fram (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been asking "why doesn't the unreferenced BLP counter go down?" I spend my time adding references, but at the end of the day, the number stays about the same. Sometimes it goes up. I even cleaned up a few categories, only to find them filled the next morning. Well I found one answer User:Tassedethe is busy sticking more tags on, faster than they can be sourced. Obviously this user is not making an attempt to source them, just tagging and moving on, by the hundreds. I don't know what can be done about it, but there's your answer.Trackinfo (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That user seems to do a lot of wikignoming which rightfully involves tagging unrefed BLPs as such. They don't seem to be doing anything out of process or disruptive just correctly modifying that an unrefed article is actually an unrefed BLP article. That's helping things. I'd be more concerned about the tendentious editing to removed content and sources and then claiming no sourcing exists. -- Banjeboi22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This user's contributions is a source to chase. And in reference to the unreferenced BLP situation, we should get credit for making progress against this additional surge, as opposed to later being told that our efforts have failed (so mass deletions are the only course of action). I fought this argument with some of the deletionists, that is what they will push for.Trackinfo (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree, I'm seeing them make incremental improvements and not in a disruptive way. That the total BLP count changes in not that big of deal, ideally we want to know the true scope of the category and generally they're helping. In theory the articles that they move into the category are put in the March 2010 pile rather than the ones from months or years ago so the back-log can still be seen as the number of pre-2010 articles will still be going down. If you feel someone is mixing statistics you can put out that it's more accurate to count pre-2010 or whenevr this whole drama started rather than just the total number although both numbers are still very high in almost everyone's opinion. -- Banjeboi10:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Question about how contributors "consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction"
Here's a recent paper which touches on this point: "Redistributing Moral Agency: One of the most striking elements of Wikipedia‟s vandal fighting networks is the extent to which it transforms the decision making process in reviewing edits. In a setting such as Wikipedia, such decisions are key turning points in deciding what is valid or invalid content and who are the legitimate or illegitimate contributors to a base of knowledge.". Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The paper I cited provides an interesting account of how a variety of processes and flags interact to form a distributed and powerful defense mechanism for Wikipedia. The ARS is a component of a similar sort in the overall complex of processes relating to article improvement, amendment and deletion. The mechanisms tend to interact and evolve and it seems good to share sources which comment intelligently upon this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
We deal with issues of content and newbies adding content all the time. This thread may be a bit highbrow for this page but certainly speaks to the general atmosphere of combativeness that has been seen here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. One of the things I've learned from my ARS experience is that newbies often feel very put off and given a welcome message are sometimes quite appreciative of sound advice especially in creating content. -- Banjeboi10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added the rescue tag to the article to try to solicit editors to improve and source the article better.--Milowent (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a classic example of people wasting our time with pointless deletion nominations. Spending just half a second clicking on the Google news search or Google book search, would've revealed plenty of sources for this. DreamFocus03:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This got saved from scrap heap on the last day of the AfD today. It started out as Hitler bacon (literal translation) from Hungarian, which seemed to cause a number of knee-jerk delete votes, and another newbie editor (and Hungarian speaker to boot) being scared away. With some effort, including help from the Bacon project (or whatever those bacon obsessed guys are called), it was greatly improved and at least closed no consensus. What disturbs me is that the concept of the article was verifiable (with some difficulty) and improvable, and relates a fascinating story about how a cheap jam product in Hungary is named after Hitler and bacon. The knowledge of Hungary's version of a Spam like product would have been lost to English wikipedia for no good reason.--Milowent (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've had a lot of unfortunate interactions with Delicious carbuncle and have now reverted their adding the rescue tag seen here. The article first off shows little signs of rescuing to begin with, that editor seems to be grinding an axe and they've made absolutely no indication why they think the article should be rescued. Feel free to revert if you want to take owner ship for defending the article at AfD. -- Banjeboi23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That you don't see the problem is actually the problem. - As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers. If this is just your latest round of distraction and disruption or some other WP:Drama I don't know or care. But that you are gleefully disrupting more areas of the overall project only serves to demonstrate the lack of respect you have for other editors and the project as a whole. -- Banjeboi23:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just made a comment at the AfD, but to be honest, I don't think the text you've quoted is generally followed by others. I'm not here to criticize, that's just my impression. I appreciate any help your can offer finding good references. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I just finished rescuing Mesame Dasi, with the nominator withdrawing the AfD nomination. I guess it should be added to the Hall of Fame now, but...how do I do that? The instructions section in the Hall of Fame is blank for some reason. SilverserenC03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It is rather difficult to add new sections to the hall of fame. I attempted to make this semi-automatic, then failed and deleted the instructions.
If you know how to add sections to a table, please go ahead, I can correct any mistakes you make. Okip 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I could really use some help on the articles I added to the list. A number of them (though i'm wavering on about two of them) are extremely notable, but the other users are being nitpicky or are just focusing on the short length of the articles. I believe i'll be able to handle Status paradox, maybe, on my own, as i'm focusing a lot of my attention on that. I'll also focusing a lot on Planck particle, and Meg Sneed seems like it will survive, but the rest aren't doing so well. Could I get some help in handling them? SilverserenC06:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that might be a little unfair, but I understand your frustration when there is so much that needs doing and we always seem to be swamped by the never-ending tide of deletionists. ManicSpider (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I just feel that there's only a few of us that I ever see active and doing stuff related to the squadron. And, yeah, the deletionists are winning at this point. SilverserenC00:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Who are the three active contributors in your view? Just curious as I'd not come across User:Silver seren myself before and so there may be more activity than he supposes - our paths may just have not crossed yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I just threw the number three out there as an example for a small number of people. The most prolific people that i've noticed have been User:Milowent, User:Dream Focus, and User:Benjiboi. Though i've seen you around too, Warden. I'm surprised you haven't noticed me, considering I added almost all of the articles that are on the rescue list now. SilverserenC20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, the deletionists are "losing" like crazy. Do worthwhile articles get deleted? Yes. And the deletion of worthwhile articles does damage editor morale and discourages new editors. And sourcing articles up for deletion that can be rescued is hella fun. Wikipedia is still growing by over 1,000 new articles per day, even net of deletions. I've seen deleted articles get recreated and survive, or the same information blossom in new places-- in short, information finds a way. It would be nice if the administrative burden of needless AfD debates could be eliminated, but life always has overhead. Not everyone with an inclusionist outlook is always active here, but they appear throughout AfD discussions again and again, be it names you know, occasional names, new names, or even IP editors calling B.S. on something they think belongs.--Milowent (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
looks a bit odd, i'll try to check it out. seems like the subject wants his article deleted because he's done some stuff he'd rather not have perpetuated.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The guy is kinda marginal. 21 hits on google news archive[5] for oddball things. he's run for Canadian office at a very young age, which made some press, and lost. And he's had some legal squabbles on minor import. Canadians may think he's notable.--Milowent (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You are on a tagging marathon this week, seren! I do try to check what's tagged every few days, but I don't weigh in on every one.--Milowent (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That's why i'm going to point out the ones I feel are important here on the Talk page. Though do try to get to as many as you can. :3 SilverserenC03:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Guys this isn't about voting, and please don't let rescuing articles degenerate into canvassing. We should focus on improving endangered but improvable articles to at least the point where they clearly meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Not on drumming up !votes for particular deletion debates. ϢereSpielChequers12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Categorisation backlog
Many of the projects are making great progress at sourcing improving and rescuing unreferenced BLPs within their purview, however there are lots of endangered articles that projects are unlikely to adopt because they are uncategorised.
WP:NEEDCAT and especially Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized and unreferenced biographies of living people are both good places to find uncategorised or very poorly categorised articles, but NEEDCAT is unusually backlogged and the report is a new feature. Can I tempt some wp:hotcat users to help clear those backlogs? There are hundreds of articles that might well come to the attention of projects if categorised (it is also worth checking the history, I've rescued several this week where an IP vandal had removed large chunks of an article including categories and even references). I've put several hours into it this week, but it needs a bit more than I can do to get on top of this. ϢereSpielChequers13:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Reddit doesn't seem to be worth our energies. Really, if it's not on Wikipedia it's simply out of our scope.
I'm glad to see that Wikipedia doesn't care about Wikilobbying, it makes it so much easier to slant articles to a particular point of view. Thanks for that, anonymous user! cojoco (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggested a bot, I just need consensus on its use. How do you all feel about this idea, and how should I proceed (where should I ask for opinions on it)?
In the quest to reference all biographies of living people, editors are deleting large portions of text.
I suggest creating a bot which does the following:
Editor deletes large portions of text, in the edit summary editor adds the three letters: "bxt", for example. (some word which is very short but will not be typed by someone else)
The bot daily looks for edits which have the "bxt" in their edit summary.
the bot then adds a message on the talk page:
==Unreferenced material removed==
A large portion of unreferenced material was removed from the article page: [http://LINK]
Dear Rescue Squad: Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) was recently added to your alert list after a rather odd sequence of events. This is a TV series that started in UK and then spawned a US version, with both versions building their own extensive histories. Until recently there was one big and pretty awkward combined article at Whose Line Is It Anyway?. There were discussions on that article's talk page to split off content about the US version. Somebody created Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) which was pretty anemic until someone else started this AfD discussion as a strange way to draw attention to the need for a full split. Votes at the AfD are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping and expanding the new article for the US series, which would mean a full split from the original article about both series.
I have completed the split today, which turned into pretty extensive alterations to both articles. There is now a full article about the US series, while the original combined article is now focused on the UK series. This is probably what other volunteers had in mind when they tagged the new US article for rescue. Hopefully this reduces the work you guys will have to do. But please check to see if the two articles are now adequately split apart while still retaining the appropriate narrative links to each other. We might need to improve the citations too.
I commented, looks like it will close snowball keep anyway, I think AFD should be last resort. Okip 03:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Interested folks used the AfD process to try to get things moving because there had been various edit tags and split/merge suggestions sitting around for months with nobody noticing. It was a weird process, but you gotta admit it worked. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I redirected it again to amnesty international, trying to be as nice as possible to the motivated new editor. I hope we don't lose him as an editor. :/ Okip 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
As a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, I find that some articles nominated for rescue do not have any real justification for rescue. There must be independent, verified sources in the article, or easily found by searches for me to be willing to say Keep for an article. Sometimes my own judgment is that an article is not notable, or unduly an ad for a cause or a person. I am making this comment here because I have said Delete or commented on possible use of the material in an article elsewhere. Mostly I am an inclusionist, but not always. Occasionally I find that I don't care one way or the other, and say nothing. Comments?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I'm sorry if some of the articles I add to the list don't meet the standards you're looking for. Those ones are on the fringe of notability and I add them in the hopes that another member will be able to find other sources that I missed. If not...then not. SilverserenC20:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "justified" is the right word. "Possible" seems more apt: no matter how much someone may want to rescue something, if there aren't any sources to help remedy the current state of the article... there's nothing a bunch of well-meaning editors can do to help. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think your comments are quite understandable, DTHomsen. In my view, being a member of the ARS is not, and should not be, synonymous with inclusionism and keep !voting. I consider myself, on balance, a deletionist: I certainly !vote delete more than I !vote keep. I also see articles tagged for rescue for which I have grave doubts about their prospects of salvage. But I also agree with the principles of rescuing worthy articles that are in danger of deletion, and do so myself. Thus I am a member of this project. One doesn't have to agree with every rescue tag, or have to want to keep everything that has been "rescued", to be an article rescuer. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't really consider myself a member of this project, but my experiences are similar. Sometimes I see an AfD and think it's definitely going the wrong way. Half of the time it's headed to deletion even though it's clearly an encyclopedic topic and only the article is in a bad state (e.g. "owned" by a fringer or full of spam), and half of the time it's headed to inclusion even though it clearly has no merit, only lots of trivial coverage. Usually it's the second category that reminds me of the existence of AfD, and once I look there I spot examples of the first category, which I will then try to "rescue" single-handedly. HansAdler10:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I see you guys active around WP:AFD, but this page, the hall of fame, and close to everything else is just really sluggish almost all of the time. We need to get some more energy into this project. SilverserenC21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You guys. *laughs* You're all silly. :P I dunno, it just feels like the ARS doesn't actually "do" much. Even though I know everyone is active in AfD and everything, it still just feels like...we're just a bunch of people that aren't really connected or that invested in this project. We don't do any real community stuff, it feels like, there's nothing that truly holds us all together. Though I guess that can be said for many other once great projects, like the Counter-Vandalism Unit. They're still active and all, but they're nothing like what they used to be. SilverserenC22:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of BLPPRODs to source. Look at WP:PRODSUM and go after those with Google, and de-PROD what you source. Let us know what you save! FWIW, I'm seeing about a 25% error rate on the BLP PRODS, vs a 5% error rate (well, or me deciding that an AfD is really the better route) on traditional PRODs. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
When you say 25% error rate do you mean that 25% are actually sourced when they are tagged? If so that's quite alarming. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So...where do we announce the prods that have been saved? The Hall of Fame only deals with AfDs, not PRODs. And I think he means a 25% rate of articles that have clear sources if you searched Google, but the nominator didn't bother to look. SilverserenC00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
In fairness I don't have so much a problem with that. I tend to look for sourced before BLPprodding an article, but I don't think the failure to do so should be considered an "error". Policy doesn't require it; new page patrol attempts at sourcing are likely to be deficient; and it's good for article creators to be asked to take a bit of responsibility. But I digress. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sticky prods differ from other prods in several keys ways:
They only apply to real people, not fictional characters.
They only apply to living people, not deceased people.
They only apply to articles created after the 18th of March 2010
They only apply to unsourced articles - not poorly sourced articles (though you need a reliable source to rescue one)
There is some ambiguity, but wp:before doesn't strickly apply.
And critically, notability is not an issue. So there will be notable subjects stickyprodded (unlike AFD where, in my opinion, very little is particularly worth saving). --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, and just because I de-BLPPROD something doesn't mean I endorse its notability. Some things that both fail A7 and are unsourced BLPs I don't even bother trying to fix, but just last night I was able to source a guy who had papers published in an IEEE journal, a wannabe American Idol, and an actress with 2 minor IMDB credits to her name. Now, they have at least one source in each article, so are not going to be deleted for that reason this time around. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"If I went berserk on a deletion spree would that help?" - Yes! Recently, I've sensed some improvement in AfD nominations, the volume of bad nominations seems to have gone down a bit. I never look at the hall of fame and don't know where saved prods get tracked (other than on our watchlists for a possible AfD).--Milowent (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be good to record prod and CSD rescues, how about creating a subpage in your userspace for your rescues and link to it from the members list? ϢereSpielChequers12:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Okip is coming back? If not, can we create a memorial to him? We need to remind future editors of what happens to inclusionists who fight the system too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.42.123 (talk • contribs)
I think he may have given up on the project because of the whole ANI discussion. I know that something like that would get to me too. SilverserenC02:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you currently asking at ANI? That is not the venue for asking such things. ANI is only if you have a current problem with another user. Your best bet would just be to leave a message on Okip's talk page and just wait and see. As for your memorial question, I have no idea. SilverserenC02:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Okip is not blocked, and is free to return when he feels like it. He's made some unwise statements and some enemies, but he's away by his own choosing at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a thread on wikipedia review called Wreck of the Okip, though I wouldn't call that a memorial. As JC notes, Okip isn't blocked, so we need not give up hope yet. If he does leave, he won't be the first. When WP stops being fun, the pay is not good enough to stick around.--Milowent (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Having learned of the existence of this effort perhaps there would be some interest in this article. I think is a rare and interesting document and deserves an article but it apparently needs a wider audience for development or it's scheduled for deletion. I think (though this argument isn't in the article) that it's approximately the only document of it's kind. It's certainly the only one I've heard of except that New Zealand modeled one based on it. I'd welcome any thoughts as to the viability of the article.Smkolins (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I know it's not famous, but but I thought it worthwhile. I know not everything worthwhile gets to be in wikipedia but I think this is worth the effort to try. Anyway, got to go do some other things for a few hrs.... :-) Smkolins (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Adding a Rescue tag to an upcoming event
I'm here because I want to get your opinion about adding a rescue tag to an article. The article is about an event/movement that has popped up in the past two weeks. The idea for the event was created by an artist but is now driven by an essentially anonymous public. Since the article was taken to AfD, several news sources have covered the event (NYT, LAT, WSJ, and WashP to name the most reliable) which have now been added as references. The AfD discussion seems to be split between Keep and Delete for various reasons. I want to know if you think that adding the rescue tag would be considered canvassing. I don't want to sully the name of ARS or be considered a canvasser which is why I haven't mentioned the name of the article here and asked about the application. If more info is needed, let me know. OlYellerTalktome15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
If the article is already well-sourced and written (or at least as well-sourced and written as it can be), then there shouldn't be a need to rescue it and the AfD should just be a discussion about policy and guideline interpretations. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Right. {{rescue}} is primarily a plea for help in getting sources. If there are plenty and it's already covered in multiple reliable sources (and the ones you list seem fine), I doubt the ARS can help you unearth any better/different ones which would change people's minds. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
