Misplaced Pages

• Another matter is instruction extrapolations and instruction creep regarding use of the template, which are not included in the template's actual use instructions.

• Some have stated that a rescue template should be removed once sources have been added to an article. This goes against the current instructions for use of the tag, in which removal of the tag is forbidden once it has been placed.

• Some say that adding a rescue template to an article without making a certain number of improvements to an article is misuse of the template, or disqualifies use of the template. There are no parameters in the instructions that specifically state how many improvements should be made to an article to qualify the use of a rescue tag.

• Some have extrapolated arguments that edits either have to be performed prior to adding a rescue template, or conversely, that a rescue template cannot be used once editing improvements have been made to an article being considered for deletion.

• Some have extrapolated that once a rescue template has been placed, the placer is somehow obligated to continue to make improvements to the article.

• Some have synthseized canvass arguments based upon some of the various extrapolations above, stating that use of the tag amounts to canvassing, unless various extrapolated rules (that are not part of the actual instructions) are adhered to.
  

None of these extrapolations are included in the template's actual instruction set. These types of instruction creep don't serve to change the actual instructions for the template.

If the template is kept after this discussion ends, users who continue to extrapolate instruction uses for the template not based upon the actual instructions should focus on obtaining consensus to change the instruction set.

—(Signature and timestamp for this addition here on the ARS talk page) Northamerica1000 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for ARS Project page redesign

See {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}} at right:

In emmulating other Misplaced Pages projject pages, I propose a modification to the Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron project page, adding a sidebar just as is used in other projects.

Can someone please create a Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Sidebar for the ARS?

I propose ARS emmulate examples such as the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar and have its own delsort page similar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film... creating the page "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Article Rescue Squadron".

And similar also to other projects, and to address concerns that the Rescue Template should not be on mainspace artcles...

and as just as with {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}}...

this would entail creation of {{subst:delsort|Article Rescue Squadron|~~~~}} delsort to tag (hopefully) rescuable articles thusly:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Article Rescue Squadron-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

allowing articles considered improvable when listed at AFD to be IN the newly created sidebar-linked ARS delsort for ARS members to easily check. Who will help? Schmidt, 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions:

Ideas anyone?

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

• I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.
  

—Northamerica1000 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review

The disruptive editor Bali ultimate added the rescue tag to Misplaced Pages Review. It's a trick to get us to vote keep on an attack site that has targeted our prominent members. They keep adding it. I used my 3rr already. Please assist. CallawayRox (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's what the rescue tag is for, then you shouldn't be here. And don't canvass for edit warriors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is a known ARS critic who hasn't improved the article at all. This is an attempt to distract and waste our resources. CallawayRox (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The point of tagging is that you don't know how to fix the article, but you think someone else might. If you can fix it yourself, you don't need to tag it. How is that a waste of resources? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"couldn't help myself" indicates bad faith. CallawayRox (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So does saying "I used my 3rr already". And if it's not bad faith, it shows a significant lack of understanding of what WP:3RR is for. --Conti|✉ 20:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• That editor has gone after the ARS before, although its been awhile. He once tagged a hopeless article for rescue that was about people who are vegetarians and had sex with animals just to mess with us. Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in. Dream Focus 07:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously youre using the word 'evil' in a humourous way, but yesterday was certainly a sad day. At least dozens of voters came out in support of the squad, with some non members recognising that we do the best work in the entire encyclopaedia. If one ignores the deletionist nonsense, the TfD is a fitting memorial to mark the passing of the old ARS into legend. Deletionists may have won this time, but the values we represent - inclusiveness, friendliness and respect for others work –will never be destroyed and will find new and even better forms to express themselves. In the end, good always prevails over evil. It is inevitable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is nothing stopping editors (whether or not they are fans of ARS) editing and improving articles which are being considered for deletion. pablo 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion occurring about at Village Pump (Policy) regarding ARS

• User:MichaelQSchmidt A discussion is occurring at Village pump regarding ARS: Misplaced Pages: Village pump (policy)– Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad.
  

—Northamerica1000 08:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my proposal was begun in a different discussion amd was moved to the villiage pump by another. I asked for input up above as well. Schmidt, 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Struck out name above. I apologize for the incorrect attribution in this case. Northamerica1000 21:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WTF?

• So the rescue template actually got deleted, huh? Stupid nominations yield stupid unpredictable results, as always. Is there another place to list AfD discussions for articles that merit rescue? The template almost never drew in useful non-ARS member assistance by itself.--Milowent • 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

North just seems to like following guidelines to the letter, cant really blame them for that, or for having the good faith to think the community would come to a reasonable decision at the TfD. However we try to organise, we're almost certainly going to be attacked if we're successful in saving large numbers of articles from deletion. Perhaps the most important lesson we can draw from recent events is that no one inclusionist should try to save more than say 2 or 3 articles a week. Its always the most active editors who seem to become the focus of their attacks. Except maybe the few gifted with the grace to easily get on with deletionists such as maybe yourself, MQS and Silver. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I remain neutral on the matter of the deletion of the rescue template, because the template was deleted per consensus. I think it was intelligible to nominate it for deletion, because people continued to synthesize canvass arguments for typing the ten-character template onto an article. Then there was the problem of instruction creep; people making up rules that weren't part of the template's instruction set. Fact is, ARS is a Wikiproject that I just stumbled upon and considered a good idea. So, I got involved. Then, people began complaining that the typing of a ten-character template onto an article was canvassing. It's amazing how people will synthesize arguments and then make false accusations based upon that synthesis. I've been falsely accused of canvassing for typing a ten-character template onto a Misplaced Pages article, and was even brought to ANI for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Then I spent my time refuting arguments about cherry-picked articles and AfD discussions I had contributed to, and refuted each and every argument with truthful facts. I think ARS is a useful project, but it becomes droll to be continuously falsely accused of canvassing for typing a template onto an article. Northamerica1000 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two suggestions. ARS might consider adding a hidden parameter to the deletion template that would result in an articles for rescue category that could be monitored by ARS and others. ie. a parameter such as |rescue=Yes/No with the default being No Instead of adding the Rescue tag to an article, ARS would merely flag the article for rescue using |rescue=Yes. The alternative is to create the standard deletion sorting mechanism to be added to AfD discussions so that articles for rescue would again show up as a subpage of the ARS projects. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Or we might want to make a category that we can tag AfDs with, like User:Gene93k is always adding for Wikiprojects (he's like the only one that does it, so he's indispensable to Misplaced Pages). That way, it's a small typeset note in the AfD discussion itself and we can all access the category. The main reason, in my opinion, why it was deleted (at least the visual reason) was because it was so obtrusive, slapping a huge template tag into the article. There's absolutely no reason to do that if all we want to do is keep track of articles that can be improved. We were essentially using it for posturing and ownership. Silverseren 16:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Does the old one Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue still work? CallawayRox (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This is my second choice after DRV. The visual obtrusiveness was a good advertisement for the important work of the ARS. Selery (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Serving as an advertisement for the article rescue squadron seems like an abuse of the purpose of templates and categories. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• We should get this travesty overturned at DRV. "Consensus" my ass. CallawayRox (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where it will go, but I'd have fun with it if someone did it. Perhaps on some planet 60/40 of who shows up is a consensus, but not on Earth. Whether Misplaced Pages is on Earth, I sometimes wonder.--Milowent • 20:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DRV. The closer's statement was completely unpersuasive (not to mention incredibly long winded) and I'd like additional review. I would prefer that a ARS long-timer put up the DRV... long story. Selery (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be "persuasive"; as the closing admin, my job is to summarise what people said, not say my own things. With 89 participants, there was a lot to say ;p. Milowent, if you're searching for "pure" consensus, you'll never find it at that deletion discussion. You'll never find it anywhere else on earth either, unless your argument is with yourself in a locked room. In that situation, I feel sure that 100 percent of the participants can be brought around to your point of view. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anymore support for DRV? It will be an uphill battle. CallawayRox (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus, Ironholds, its silly for us to even argue about it. Consensus is something much harder to obtain than a majority, or even a supermajority. I didn't come up with these "rules," the early wikipedians did, who were far more inclusionsist than the current population. Because of that, there has been neverending pressure on admins to treat things that are not consensus as consensus when the default outcome (keeping) is sought to be avoided. The meaning of consensus at AfD has become distorted, this is all not surprising, its completely predictable organizational behaviour. You came out with what you thought to be the best result, and certainly one that had support in the discussion, but not one that was a consensus in the way that term is generally used outside AfD.--Milowent • 13:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose not to participate in the AFD because I figured it would be needlessly dramatic. But I wonder if your failure to see the circular reasoning ("it isn't canvassing because we have enough ARS members that you can never find a consensus that we were canvassing") is strategy, or irony. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's gone, and frankly it's not that big of a deal to me. It was extraordinarily useful due to the sheer amount of junk that is rightfully sent to AfD every day. At least the template, and more importantly the Article list/Category gave one a starting point from which to work. On the bright side, most of the arguments used in support of deletion in the TfD are just as easily used to get the AfD template moved out of article space (where it does no service to readers as it only represents an internal process). Maybe that long overdue correction can be brought up as a result of this and the AfD template can be moved to the talk page. Moving them both to talk space would have been the best possible solution, but what can you do in the face of a closing admin who discounts the canvassing theory, yet still considers those who argued it to have made valid support for their !vote? Now the challenge is to determine a new method of seperating the wheat from the chaff in AfD. Somewhere in that list every day, 5-10% of the articles are worth some kind of effort. How do we identify those that are worth the time? Jim Miller 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could, for example, note that the closing administrator discounted the canvassing people completely, and read the bit where he specifically said he wasn't bean-counting and merely drew up the numbers to show that the same decision would have been reached if he had. Just a thought. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I not as concerned about the ARS tag going away as I am the very premise that those opposing it were using to support deletion. As we find more creative and productive methods to identify and alert editors to articles that need rescue we need to be watchful for attempts to twart those methods for the same reasons used to delete the ARS tag. In other words, any method we use to help rescue articles, may be challenged because it lowers the probability that any given article may be deleted. Those who favor deletion have historically opposed any method that lowers that probability. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, because the fact that it blatantly ignores WP:CANVASS could not possibly be it. Those opposed must want Misplaced Pages to be completely blank instead? Any attempt to continue canvassing will be met with the same response by the community: ARS must follow the same standards and policies everyone else does. If that doesn't make sense to you, tough.--v/r - TP 19:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

TP, you expressed significant opposition to the ARS template in that Tfd, mostly based on WP:CANVASS. Although you did indicate that rescuing notable articles from deletion was a laudable endeavor. Here are the lead paragraphs from WP:CANVASS:

1. In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
2. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour.

We all know what blatant canvassing is, but might be instructive and actually might inform the future actions of ARS if you could describe for us what you believe would be acceptable ARS activity that would comply with paragraph one above. Can you do that for us? Thanks - Mike Cline (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list is as close as you'll get to acceptable. I think it's still canvassing but there are two differences that I like. 1) It's transparent so those outside are fully informed about how it's used, and 2) So far it's been used to discuss how to improve the article which I also like. At first I thought this page would end up at WP:MfD as a way to circumvent the deletion of the rescue template and continue to canvass, but after watching it since it was created, I sort of like it. Not that I speak for everyone, but I could endorse this approach.--v/r - TP 03:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way for the ARS to avoid problems in the future is to focus on the rescuing of articles, not AfD's. I've always thought that ARS could become one of the most respected wikiprojects on WP if they largely refrained from voting at AfD, and let their improvements to the article prompt everyone else to change their votes. —SW—  15:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If the AfD isn't 'rescued' it makes no difference what you do to the article. I think the vast majority of constructive editors would agree that articles on notable subjects that can be brought up to scratch should be kept and brought up to scratch. The main problem with fixing the article first is time. Take this AfD as an example. I came across this when I only had a few minutes available - it took me less than 5 minutes to find sources demonstrating notability and list them in the AfD (which begs the question why the nom couldn't have done that and saved us all a lot of wasted time, but that's another issue). It was more than a day later when I had time to spend the hour and a half needed to go through those sources in detail and improve the article. At other times it could be days before I had that much time. Getting in early often prompts other editors to look at the evidence presented and agree that the article should be kept. Leaving it a few days until improvements can be made risks having half a dozen editors lacking an inclination to look for sources to come along and !vote for deletion (very common unfortunately), by which time it can be much harder to turn the discussion around. It would be nice to think that when presented with evidence of notability and/or an improved article, editors who argued for deletion would revisit the discussion and change their mind, but unfortunately in the real world (as far as that describes WP) many won't budge once they have given an opinion, and even worse will still argue for deletion once it has been demonstrated that it would be inappropriate. This revisiting and the encouragement for editors do so is also an additional drain on resources. So get in early to the AfD, but present policy/guideline-based arguments for keeping backed up by evidence. Then use sources found to improve the article when you are able to do so. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with S. Wong, and in fact many people who do actually do the work on these articles are not in fact fans of ARS. Some, in fact, have revoked their 'membership' precisely because of the attitude of some of their colleagues here - but that, too, is another matter. Your point about the limited timeframe is a good one though. pablo 20:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What if (just an idea) we do two things. 1) ARS uses Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list so for situations like Michig mentions, they can post the sources to the AFD and to this page so someone else in the ARS can come by and use those sources to improve the article, and 2) Instead of an {{rescue}} template on the article, what if we had a {{ars wuz her}} (or more seriously {{improved}}) template to put in an AFD at the time of improvement. That way, the closing admin will know which !votes were prior to improvement and which were after improvement so they know the weight to give the votes. For example, when I am closing an AFD, if I see major improvements have addressed the issues of prior !votes, I give less weight to those prior votes. This kind of a template would give a clear line for the closing admin at which point improvements were made. It could potentially be abused, for example if it was placed on an AFD on the 6th day at the 23rd hour, but that kind of abuse would be more obvious and addressable.--v/r - TP 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tough noogies on you TP! AfD itself is a huge canvass operation -- its whole purpose is to canvass votes for deletion, that's its important function. But it has also been elevated to a status beyond many other Misplaced Pages processes. It wasn't that long ago, though before my time, that some editors actually used to suggest that AfD (then VfD) should be halted. Perhaps the AfD template should be deleted too for a violation of WP:CANVASS.--Milowent • 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes, you're absolutely right. AFD is an exclusive club of deletionists. I'll be sure to strike out any ARS !votes in AFD because we control the audience at AFD which is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Or wait, no we don't. Anyone can participate.--v/r - TP 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Organize

ARS can easily maintain a list like many other WikiProjects do. I've done considerable work to the Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron page to make it more user friendly, clearer and less partisan. I've also created a new rescue list Located here. The rescue list would suffice, in my opinion, as a collaborative environment for ARS users and interested persons, and in many ways much more so than a template. Northamerica1000 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I've blanked the Article list page and deactivated the bot task that was updating it. You may want to redirect the "Article list" link in the toolbar to the rescue list page you've announced above. —SW—  16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Northamerica1000 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

CFS Notice

Newsletter

FYI: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20090901 is transcluded on approximately 270 user talk pages ... should it be substituted like most newsletters are? -- Black Falcon 22:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A technical solution to a social problem

I like to make a proposal which is unrelated to the rescue template or the mechanism of finding AfDd articles likely to be rescued, but that I think would help this project's goals.

One of the complaints that lead to the template deletion was that some editors viewed the Squadron activities as canvassing. They claimed that some editors were enticed by the ARS to deray AfD discussions by flooding them with Keep votes in a way that didn't help improve the article. I don't care whether those claims are substantiated or that this conduct is right or wrong; my concern is that what was seen as misbehavior could ever be attributed to the project as a whole. I've thought a way to avoid in the future that this guilt by association can gain traction; I hope that, if it works, it will alleviate the rarefied atmosphere.

The focus of the Article Rescue Squadron with respect to AfDs should not be to "keep as many articles as possible" but to "make AfDs as fair as possible". This way we could attract more immediatists and deletionists like User:SL93, which of course are welcome. This would help the project's goals and reduce "inclusionist vs deletionist" natural tensions.

Someone at the village pump proposed creating a hierarchy to police the actions of project members to keep them in check and avoid the negative perception. I don't believe in hierarchical policying at Misplaced Pages, but I feel that an easy to use tool that meets widespread use could achieve the same effect to help shape behaviors and keep away the unwanted ones.

Thus my following proposal; keep reading for its description and how it could address the project's current situation:

Templates for accurate AfD discussions

Create a group of templates to cast the votesbold words that represent each editor's desired course of action in an AfD discussion.

Wikimedia commons already has one similar set that is regularly used at their discussions, but I've never seen something similar at Misplaced Pages.

The We could create required parameters for the actions that all participants in AfD should follow but often don't. For example, a {{keep-notability}} template could require a |source=(url) parameter for the reference. This tag could be expanded into something like this:

• Keep www.example.net is a reliable source valid to establish notability.

By including templates for all the common outcomes we could entice them to be less emotional, and help users to identify when their vote is missing some step required by the relevant guideline - like, for example, linking to guidelines without arguing how they apply to the current situation. Also a list of reliable sources identified in the AfD could be generated and inserted automatically in the article, avoiding some of the hard work of improving the article itself.

Just think how WP:civil AfDs could be if most of their content was generated from templated discussions like this:

* {{delete-notability}} and I don't think we can find sources on this topic. ~~~~

* {{keep-notability|source=http://someimportantblog.wordpress.com|title=Some Important Blog}} ~~~~

** {{oppose-notability|unreliable|reason=It's a blog}} ~~~~

*** {{avoid|justablog|comment=This author is an eminence in the field.}} ~~~~

* {{delete-notability|unreliable|reason=The provided link is in a personal blog of the author, not related to his work.}} ~~~~

...that would be expanded automatically into this:

• Delete: we have no reliable sources that establish notability and I don't think we can find sources on this topic. – Compelling Reason, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some Important Blog is a reliable source valid to establish notability. – Know your guidelines, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The provided source is not reliable. It's a blog. – Format Error, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Blogs can be reliable sources. This author is an eminence in the field. – By their deeds, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: the sources provided are not reliable. The provided link is in a personal blog of the author, not related to his work. – Didn't impress me, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

In summary, we could help rise the level of discussion at those AfDs (and in particular of those where an attack is perceived), by encouraging comments that strictly follow policy. By encouraging users to abide to the consensual templates we could also lower the risk that "rogue editors" are identified with the project; and by including templates for all the possible votes we could attract editors from all the (X)-ionist spectrum.

Idealistic? Maybe, but this "templated approach" has helped Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup to educate users in providing better fair use image rationales, for example; so there is precedent that it may work.

Now I hate to say this, but I have no idea how to start a new template nor add it parameters. Someone could point me on how to get my hands dirty? Comments on the overall idea? Diego (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You've thought about this a lot, it's clear - but I must admit I'm not keen. Already at AfD people are prone to liberally pepper their comments with links to WP:HEY, WP:N, WP:BEFORE and WP:STARDOTSTAR. Sometimes the material linked is relevant, other times not. I fear that such templates would lead to an increase of spamming links to policies and guidelines through the discussion rather than actually, well, discussing the article at hand. pablo 16:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Actually no, I've not thought much about it; it came out naturally as I was writting it, after reading this morning the recent village pump discussion - so it may get shovelfuls of improvement.

The trick to make it work is to require any policy-linking template to have a mandatory 'comment' or 'reason', that would force the user to explain why they're using that guideline in particular. The point is not to discourage linking to policy but getting people to elaborate on the intended argument.

We could turn that "spamming" habit on its head if, instead of links, these templates get some widespread usage. If enough editors lead by example by always detailing which part of the linked guideline is relevant to their position, others will follow. Heck, we could even have that template for debates that are not AfD - a {{guideline-link|relevant-section=}} template could be used at any talk page as the default way to clarify links to guidelines. Diego (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well don't let my pessimism get in your way; it's only my opinion after all. Good luck. pablo 19:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why a deletionist is joining ARS

I put my username in the member list and I will help out. I am a deletionist, but I notice that most articles that are tagged for rescue are indeed notable. I also notice massive deletionists. There is two types of deletionists in my opinion. Deletionists follows guidelines strictly while massive deletionists follow it so strictly that they completely twist them around in the process. There is someone that I'm dealing with that went from inclusionist to massive deletionist in one day (I will not give the username). I never feel anger towards inclusionists viewpoints on notability because I respect their viewpoints even though I usually debate my point. Massive deletionists, on the other hand, make me so angry. Nominators that don't follow WP:BEFORE also make me angry. I am hoping to help save articles from these two groups. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't think the ARS should be seen as an inclusionist effort, and I dislike that partisans on both sides have tried to portray it as such. Every article that can be made encyclopedic should be kept. Every article that cannot, but has worthwhile content should be merged appropriately. Deletion is the correct outcome for stuff that has no value, or causes actual harm, to the encyclopedia. Thus, rescuing encyclopedic content can and should be the obligation of every editor. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS isn't an inclusionist cabal. A few people have tried to make it that, especially with the canvassing incident a couple years ago. But I think this RFA speaks for how things have toned down from the peak of the conflict. We need to learn how to communicate with each other better. I've seen both sides inflame the discussion, and I've seen the more "precise" Wikipedians go on a deletion spree to spite the inclusionists, as much as I've seen the more "precise" inclusionists go on a "keep" spree to spite the deletionists. In reality if we follow the general notability guideline and WP:NOT we would agree on 90% of all AFDs. Most people don't want to delete entire topic areas any more than people want to keep entire topic areas (regardless of quality). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker - We vote keep as we want to save interesting and useful article, as well as to respect the work of the folks who built them up. Its nothing to do with wanting to "spite" deletionists. Please dont project deletionist mentality onto members of this squad! @SL93 , welcome to our Squadron. I only wish you could have joined us in happier times. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I am clearly an inclusionist, sometimes I agree with an AfD and say delete, or say merge, depending on the subject. Sometimes I look at a rescue tagged article and just go on to the next one, because I don't care one way or the other. However, the massive deletionists do make me angry, but having spent a lot of time early in 2011 on a massive deletionist situation, I now avoid getting involved in those situations. Too much time and too little accomplished. ARS is an important project, and every editor who takes a reasoned, careful approach to an article tagged for rescue should be welcomed here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable, I find it odd that's what you gleaned from my comment. Read it again. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood. I have heard so many members calling the group just a bunch of inclusionists. Those comments and others in the ANI topic about ARS members canvassing is odd. I commented that even if it used for a canvassing, AfD is not a head count. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Misplaced Pages: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents– Article Rescue Squadron on AfD.
  

—Northamerica1000 05:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The rescue template

The following is an excerpt from a post I made at the current deletion discussion regarding the rescue template, for the perusal of Article rescue squadron members and any users interested in the topic.

Excerpted text

• Comment– People have varying views about how the rescue template should be used. I simply use it in accordance with its instructions for use located at WP:RESCUETAG. A significant part of use of the template is to involve other Article rescue squadron WikiProject (ARS) members to share in the work of improving articles with topics that are perceived to actually be notable per WP:GNG by the tag-placer. People have continuously extrapolated their own views regarding these instructions in various manners, adding on additional instruction paramaters that are not a part of the template's actual instruction set.

• Some state that use of the template amounts to canvassing other ARS members to vote in Article for deletion discussions. This is a flawed argument, because the use of many tags could be portrayed in this manner. For example, adding a refimprove tag to an article could be misstated as “canvassing” users to add more references to articles. Adding a Wikiproject template to an article talk page could be misstated as “canvassing” a Wikiproject to participate in an article. Adding a template to an article does not amount to canvassing or vote stacking. Misplaced Pages templates are neutrally-worded. See WP:CANVASS for the actual guidelines regarding canvassing.

When a template is placed on an article, it is very unreasonable, overly-assumptive and unfair to state that the tag-placer is somehow psychically knowledgeable in advance about what any other Misplaced Pages users may hypothetically type on their computers. It's also unreasonable to state that those who respond to rescue tags are obligated to respond in whatever various specific manners. A user who places a tag on an article has no control over the actions of other users on Misplaced Pages.