Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 5 |

Archive 6

| Archive 7 →

Vote stacking

Do you guys ever work on the articles that you rescue or just vote stack at AFD - because I've been looking at many of your recent rescues and that's all they consist of 1) add tag to article 2) vote stack at afd 3) leave. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A fair question, but didn't we do this yesterday? --Kizor 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here yesterday but noticed the pattern in some AFDs I was running. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are they still running, and can you give examples? (I'm asking because I haven't seen it happen myself, and haven't seen anyone point to specific instances of it happening; I may have missed something however and would like to know if so.) Look at GayNZ.com for a recent example where more than that was done; a few other examples are at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Examples. --Zeborah (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't sneak in the time or the research for an elaborate answer, but the group was nominated for deletion a few days ago on charges of votestacking after the AfD'er of New Jersey School Report Card saw it listed for rescue. The ARS deletion was closed as speedy keep with no votes to delete on the 13th, and the article was kept after it improved from this to this. --Kizor 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a series of warhammer 40k articles up for AFD that have had the resuse tag placed on that - the only action has to be a) cut and paste a boilerplate KEEP into the AFDs (DGG and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles in particular) the only other editing has to be to added a similar titled but actually unconnected book as a reference to a couple of the articles such as here. From my perspective it's just text book vote stacking. I've noticed in a couple of other AFDs that are unconnected to me - just check out the articles that are currently tagged for rescue, check the afds and check the actually clean-up/sourcing work - it's very telling. I think the only thing to do is to create a Article Referral Squadron that will act as a counterpoint to this inclusionist vote stacking --Allemandtando (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that AfD is actually a discussion not a vote, when they are closed its based on the arguments put forward not the numbers. If there is a discussion you think was closed in error then you can raise the issue at WP:DRV Gnangarra 11:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, closers plow over poorly-made keeps all the time and I've seen an AfD with a 3-to-1 !vote distribution closed in the latter party's favor and then upheld in DRV because it had The Rules on its side. And whoa, there, Alleman! Could we look into this matter a little further before deciding on the necessity of opposition on a massive scale? --Kizor 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know all this - but so what? It doesn't change the fact that as far as I can see this is just an vote stacking project with actual clean-up and rescue of article happening as an accidental, sometimes by-product. I've nothing further to say at this stage but to be blunt, my inclination at the moment is to document the relationship between the rescuse tags, AFD and actual clean-up for a period of six weeks and nom this project for MFD if I think the evidence justifies it. You can do the same for the Article Referal squad once it's set up. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Allemandtando, I can't think of anything more useful for you to do. Go for it! --Abd (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If Allemandtando is prepared to do this work, I think the results would be useful data. I've got to say, though, that DGG and GRdeC are tireless contributors at AfD, and the two of them showing up to vote "keep" when they consider it appropriate to do so is something that would happen even if this project did not exist, and that their two votes hardly amount to votestacking. AndyJones (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the articles currently tagged, I can see a bunch of related articles regarding Warhammer 40,000 and Ace Combat topics. The person who adds a {{rescue}} tag to an article is obviously going to be in favor of keeping the article, and I do not see where more than one or two Keep !votes on any of those topics are on the ARS member list. I would hardly think that one additional Keep could reasonably be called vote stacking. There are currently 108 members of this project. If the accusation was true, it would be obvious. Jim Miller (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a "deletionist" (oooh, hide the children!) and I'm not really concerned about ARS. I'm actually a lapsed member (see my user page) and so I think the project itself is helpful. However, I can see where allemantando would get the impression that the project serves a function only in AfD. While the {{rescue}} tag is supposed to be applied to articles in AfD (it is actually often misapplied, applied to the article body rather than within the AfD template), it is not supposed to be applied to every article in AfD. It is this behavior that allemantando is inarticulately railing against. IMO, ARS and WICU tags go on subjects that really shouldn't be at AfD. Bio pages that cover a notable subject but are just a copy/paste of a CV. 1 liners about borderline notable corps that seem to pass WP:CORP. Merch articles that actually have sourcing but seem like they wouldn't. Obscure topics written by someone who doesn't know wiki markup. New articles. Etc. Rescue implies the existence of an acute problem and the possibility of a solution (provided by the rescuer). The pattern allemantando is referring to is seeing articles tagged for rescue as they come up for deletion. That is a misuse (IMO) of the tag (However it could easily be argued that it is a proper use, given an inclusionist interpretation of guidelines), not a sign that the project is a front for vote-stacking. I think Alle is forgetting Lenin's dictum on conspiracies. More importantly, Jim Miller's point should be well taken--99% of the project participants don't seem to be involved in the alleged "vote stacking". Those that are involved watch AfD religiously anyway (like I do). they would be there with or without the rescue tag. I can see where alle might be coming from, but I can't run with his story very long before it departs from the facts. Protonk (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando, that was a leap of generalized bad faith against an entire project. Unsure if you intended to stir up drama but you have gotten a general response that no, ARS is not about vote-stacking. For further information on what we do and why please check out the project page. Banjeboi 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• A comment As unfounded as these accusations are, I would be careful not to turn responses to them into a general shitstorm of criticism directed at Alle. He is free to think that ARS is an inclusionist cabal and free to tilt at windmills (with some restrictions: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). We can aslo see that an attempt to build a project of editors looking to delete "cruft" was removed as swiftly as ARS was retained (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fancruft). Furthermore, it is not uncommon for editors who advocate for deletion to be regularly accused of collusion, conspiracy and otherwise nefarious acts. So I implore the people responding here to treat this as an act of frustration born of an opinion held in good faith. This isn't an excuse to lampoon Alle or to accuse him of stirring the pot for the sake of drama. Whether or not he is right about the project itself is immaterial. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, pretty much what Protonk said.

  And, in a sense, this is an inclusionist cabal. And I'm okay with that, because the goal is not to get articles kept by stacking votes and overwhelming any opposition, but by improving articles with references and rewriting and all that good stuff. Like I said in the MFD, improving articles is a good thing, regardless of the whos and whys and wheres. I don't mind being wrong when someone comes along and saves an article from AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of closure, it should be mentioned that Allemandtando was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet for an editor who had been banned for harassment. That doesn't lessen the squadron's need to live up to its standards - what has been demonstrated about one critic's judgement doesn't invalidate the side he was coming from - but we can breathe a little easier for the time being. --Kizor 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patty Bartlett Sessions

Resolved. AfD withdrawn. Banjeboi 23:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My initial research leads me to believe that she was indeed a notable Mormon pioneer. Can anyone come up with a few good references?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RobotShop

Resolved

 – AfD closed as No consensus. Banjeboi 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Page created as a record of RobotShop's notable contributions to the developing fields of robotics, domestic robotics and custom robotics. Looking for feedback from the ARS - feel free to post in my "talk" section and/or here.

NOTE: the page was not created as an advertisement but rather as information about the company. All rules and guidelines (to my knowledge) have been respected. Argument: Instead of deleting the page two days after is was created, allow users to contribute, modify and edit. The page should also be considered as WP:Web. I'm new to this; long time user, first time contributor.

--Cbenson1 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. AfD discussion is focussed on showing notability of this company. As many business publications are obscure you'd do well to find articles written about the company locally or in related business media. More the better. Banjeboi 22:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. Article has significantly improved, if anyone can help with French-Canadian sources that would help with the language barrier. Banjeboi 00:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can read French - do you mean you need sources found which are likely to be in French, or that you need to know what's in French sources that have already been found? --Zeborah (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of both although finding more good sources should probably come first. Thank you for any help you can offer! Banjeboi 02:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

Resolved. article rescued. Banjeboi 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged March 19, 2008 anti-war protest, an expanded article from Protests against the Iraq War, for rescue, it's on deletion review post-AfD. Any help appreciated. Banjeboi 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Resolved. AfD closed. Banjeboi 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I added this to the rescue list last night. It is on its third AfD, last nominated only four days after the last one closed with no consensus, almost all the editors who usually work outside this general area saying keep in the 3 AfD's. This individual is the leader of a rival movement to ISKCON / Hare Krishna, which scholarly works on the subject, that treat him and his movement and its relation to ISKCON at length, call the cause of "the most divisive" schism in the ISKCON movement, and say things like the ISKCON leadership "braced itself" for the effects of his 1990's world tour and consider him quite significant. I would work on the article myself, but will be unable to do so for the next few days. Any help would be greatly appreciated.John Z (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mana World

This one went for PROD and failed. Same admin listed on AfD. No consensus was even close when another admin came in used WP:WEB improperly. I opened a DRV this morning. Sometimes things get railroaded through. I've tried to keep in good contact with the original author, plus one of the people actually involved in the project. Even gave the deleting admin plenty of messages and time to rethink their choice. The original article was reasonably well-written (better than most of my stubs). The AfV makes for an interesting read - especially the # of folks that don't understand Linux :-) BMW(drive) 12:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Here is the AfD and the deletion review. Banjeboi 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why I merged the four articles

I merged the four articles:

• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
• Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion
• meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

because:

1. the articles focus on the same core issues,
2. the same core beliefs, and
3. the same core desires,
4. both have the same layout.
5. What these three groups are doing is duplicating each others work. Each had strengths and each had weaknesses.

Now inclusionist can all be building upon one single page.

I attempted all the content intact.

I kept the best of all articles:

1. From ICU I kept the complex but efficient way editors can list articles they want to keep
2. From the original Article Rescue Squadron I kept much of the humor and the extensive see also section. I also kept the name because I genuinely feel it inspires people more than ICU or Inclusionist.
3. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion I kept the membership lists (thousands of wikipedians support our cause)! And the eloquently written introduction and purpose.

I need some help, I have spent 6 hours straight working on this, and I am still not done. With all of the pages, templates and coding I am sure I made some mistakes, and for that I apologize. I will gladly fix any mistakes I make. thank you for your understanding. Inclusionist (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh it isn't that big of a deal. No one was at WICU anyway. I can't speak to the AIW/project:inclusionism mergers, but the WICU one was fine and should have been done earlier. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With all due respect for what seems like an immense amount of good faith work and understanding that WP:BOLD exists for a reason, I feel like you should've consulted the community at each group before unilaterally merging. I think a good case probably does exist for merging WICU and ARS and I may or may not have supported it (I remember WICU including articles before they got listed for deletion and having a more inclusionist feel to me then ARS, which was why I picked ARS to join rather than WICU), but people should've been consulted. What bothers me a lot more is the combination of ARS and the inclusionist groups. To quote from the version right before your edits started: "So the ARS are wild-eyed inclusionists? No. The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted." And as you'll see discussed at the last deletion debate, ARS includes members who are generally speaking deletionists, but also do support sourcing and saving the occasional worthy articles. There are plenty of people active in the project (myself included) who don't necessarily think of ourselves as inclusionist and would not wish to join a project that included inclusionism as one of its goals.

Again, I do respect that you put a lot of work into this and that your heart was definitely in the right place, but I strongly object to the inclusionist merges. I'm going to need to look more at WICU before I can !vote on that merge, but either way I think it's something that needed to be discussed here first. Vickser (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Inclusionist (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear about this - I'm not actually concerned about the merger of the project pages - it's editor sovereignty that is my concern. An editor's support for one project should not be automatically counted as support for a separate project without consulting them. It's a illegitimate way of support via proxy - where the editor is not aware that the proxy is occuring. That's nothing to do with this project or any of the other projects but a question of the fundamental "rights" for editors that I would hope that we would all agree on. --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Prisongangleader: good point. Who would you like me to ask I would love to ask them. Can you help me? I will probably need a bot to do it though, are you familiar with bots? Inclusionist (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Prisongangleader

Co-opping people into your project seems a little bent to me (I came here via an article you are saving). You should ask those editors if they want to be a member of this specific project. --Prisongangleader (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute - isn't meta a separate project - why is an article there being redirected herex with no discussion there? --Prisongangleader (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh it isn't that big of a deal. No one was at WICU anyway. I can't speak to the AIW/project:inclusionism mergers, but the WICU one was fine and should have been done earlier. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Prisongangleader and Protonk thanks for your hard work and comments. Prisongangleader thanks for your concerns. Redirecting articles is really common between projects. Inclusionist (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging content is fine - merging members isn't it - that's bent. You might argue that the core aims are the same but that's not an assumption you should make on behalf of other editors. They need to be asked. --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Prisongangleader: good point. Who would you like me to ask I would love to ask them. Can you help me? I will probably need a bot to do it though, are you familiar with bots? Inclusionist (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed) (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

you might object to me asking those questions but you don't just get to wipe the questions from the history. My point is this - as a general principle - editors should not be co-opped into projects they did not sign up for. They should be asked - is this as a general principle unacceptable to anyone? --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to go with PGL on this. removing legit questions is pretty uncool. Also, I hope this ("I wonder how concerned you are about this projects goals and aspirations, especially since inclusionist members would probably fight against those AfDs. ") characterization does not accurately describe the ARS, because that is almost the opposite of what the project page says. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With the ICU being a community venture, the members should have input into any merge discussion. A unilateral merge isn't really appropriate here. And to Inclusionist, Prisongangleader's concerns are legitimate - trying to use a AfD discussion to impugn him is a red herring. Try to remove this discussion is uncivil and shows a lack of willingness to engage in discussion. Address the issue. leaving to see The Dark Knight and will not be able to respond for a while sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed) Inclusionist (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a link from an article named "inclusionist" to a merger of AIW->ARS hardly seems like a stretch. An accusation of wikistalking seems out of line here. If he followed you to more than one venue and proceeded to harass you, fine. But he came here and raised a good faith point that three other editors have agreed with (in part or in whole). That isn't wikistalking. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't wikistalking. That isn't harassment. He has every right to comment on a community discussion. And plenty of users come to Wikipedia fairly familiar with how Wikipedia works, and it is not prima facie evidence that he is a sockpuppet. Stop your assumptions of bad faith and address the actual issue. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, the dark knight is awesome. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please comment no further on that matter as I will not see it until tuesday. --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:) Protonk (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing it for a second time because it was so awesome =) (will stop now for Prisongangleader's sake) sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Look's like Prisongangleader has been blocked, so won't be able to continue the discussion here, I'm afraid. I'm surprised, but I guess that is an issue for another forum. - Bilby (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How does it compare to Batman Begins? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked it better but there were still some issues (in my mind). Won't reveal further for PGL's sake (blocked or not, spoilers aren't cool). ;) Protonk (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's one that I definitely hope to see in the near future. My students liked it and it has had phenomenally positive reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in my top ten best films of all time. Gary King (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worth your time. It isn't on my top ten for various reasons (mostly because I'm grumpy and picky about top 25 films/books), but it is smart and dark. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely grumpy and picky, too, but this was definitely better than the hype, in my mind. Especially after watching that atrocious Spider-Man 3 last year! Gary King (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It has a lot of hype to live up to! :) I did see the Marvel movies (Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk) already and greatly enjoyed those and how they actually have continuity with each other. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think TDK works on non-comic book levels, too; it's a great crime film, kind of like the Departed, I guess. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, natch. It was better than the hype, for sure. As for spiderman three...Worst. Spiderman movie. Ever. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that :) Gary King (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)