Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 31
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Benjiboi in topic Likewise for Hollie Steel
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Broda Otto Barnes
ResolvedIs this the place to request help for an article that appears to have been given the trim-to-stub-and-AfD cheatment, barely rescued at AfD, restored, and now they're just starting it over again?
Summary: The discoveries of Dr. Barnes, MD, PhD, a now-deceased professor of medicine with a foundation web site,[1] have been continuously supported by a minority of licensed medical doctors for over 65 years. His JAMA and Lancet peer-reviewed work was eventually picked up by the alternative health community – yet it's not formally alternative. In the present weird situation, Wikipedia medical crusaders against alternative health have become idologically unable to distinguish between fringe and peer-reviewed medicine. Unencyclopedically using politics rather than science, if external alternative health advocates are for it, the anti-alternative editors seem to be against it – even though it's research done by a member of the group they support. During and after the AfD, agenda crusading devolved to obsessive denialism.
See the 10K restoration re-removed at the article [2], so far supported only by WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning at talk [3]. Milo 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not such a place. The Broda Otto Barnes article does not appear to be up for deletion, and so is outside the scope of this squadron. Sincerely, Skomorokh 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- You may wish to request outside involvement from relevant WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Alternative medicine. Regards, Skomorokh 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've thought about this. The problem is that including BOB in WikiProject Alternative medicine sort of 'proves' that the crusaders are justified. Milo 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Fringe theories noticeboard is also watched by people interested in problems of demarcation, weight, and appropriate sourcing. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. There has been an unsupportable fringe accusation. But a noticeboard doesn't provide ongoing editor support the way a Wikiproject might.
←Thanks for the helpful referrals. What the article really needs is centrists like DGG who, like most librarians, believes in the right to read what others want to censor or slant. Is there another Wikiproject that could be helpful in that way?
Also, thanks to Ikip for restoring this post after A Man in Black went rogue and deleted it here. Milo 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 01:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise for Hollie Steel
ResolvedWhy is there a Rescue tag on an article that's now at DRV? Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission? Just curious. Radiopathy •talk• 02:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. By actually working on the article our members have rendered entire delete discussions moot. If an article exists we would apply the {{rescue}} tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve Wikipedia in this manner. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa! Easy Ben! I am a member of the ARS. My concern was that this would be seen as canvassing, especially since "What the Rescue tag is not for" does not say anything about articles that have already been through AfD. We need to talk about this some more. Radiopathy •talk• 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, I find the constant accusations by a small but persistent group toxic and impeding the work here. I re-added the rescue tag and DRVs are structurally just different from AfD. They aren't AFD 2.0 but speak to if the AfD closed properly. ARS in the past has rescued articles at DRV by improving the article itself and addressing the issues raised. If we show the subject is notable and sourcing available then AfD's can be overturned based on new evidence - even if the close at the time was ok or borderline. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa! Easy Ben! I am a member of the ARS. My concern was that this would be seen as canvassing, especially since "What the Rescue tag is not for" does not say anything about articles that have already been through AfD. We need to talk about this some more. Radiopathy •talk• 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron?
- Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron? In particular, should the {{rescue}} tag be applied to templates currently at templates for deletion? 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
| Collapsed for space. Discussion closed. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comments
Outdent. The issue remains the same, we don't punish an editor for misusing this or any other teplate, we work to ensur ethey dont do it again. Likewise we don't accuse an entire Wikiproject for something that one editor may or may not have done. The rest is just bickering and it seems only to show emnity against the many editors here. It's unhelpful and you can consider your concern duly noted. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC) |
Motion to close
Seems there is consensus to allow templates and issues how to proceed forward have also been laid out. Can we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nom. 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi
- I second the motion. OlYellerTalktome 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you mean by "issues [on] how to proceed forward"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- That tweaks to; the project's mainpage and the template page should take place; template-specific parameters created so when {{rescue}} is added it displays not only the correct link (that works already) but also template-specific content rather than article-specific content. Also this is a good excuse to create the subpage on how to rescue content and templates would have its own section. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see that consensus. Users opposed include me, Pablo, Chris Cuningham, and Stifle. Users supporting include Benjiboi, OlYeller, JClemens, Mark Hurd, TonyTheTiger, Ikip, and Colonel Warden. Other comments came from DGG, Taemyr, AllStar, Ludwigs2, and AMiB. That's not really a consensus, and certianly not one to be decided by an involved editor. Perhaps it would be better if some examples of TfD's were given where people would want to add the rescue tag (the one example we had was not rescued), so that we can see if there would be a need for this, if this would give us any potential benefit, or if on the other hand it would only bring more rescuers to the discussion without actually doing anything about the templates (the "content", if one can call it that). Fram (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may be more constructive to see if an uninvolved editor could see if my read on consensus is accurate or not and if not suggest a way forward. Given the acrimony I'm hesitant to start quibbling over examples and hypotheticals. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be constructive if at least one example of a recent or current TfD was provided where you consider the addition of the ARS tag to be relevant, needed, useful, ...? Now, we have a discussion if templates are "content" which can be "rescued" somehow, or are just navigational tools, or something else. Furthermore, it is absoluetly unclear if the RfC was in the end about TfD or XfD (including MfD, i.e. userpages and so on? What would the ARS do with userpages?). I don't believe the RfC has a consensus or that it could be clear what the conclusion was in the end. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- TfD vs. XfD, this was technically regarding TfD a seperate discussion likely should take place to see if this speaks to XfD in general; in spirit I think it does but I'm also in no rush to use it elsewhere as we have a lot of housecleaning first. And no, if there is disagreement that there is consensus here I think it would just serve to cloud the issues to quibble on example X vs example Y. ARS' involvement in TfDs was questioned and answered so either that answer is accepted as reasonable or not. -- Banjeboi 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be constructive if at least one example of a recent or current TfD was provided where you consider the addition of the ARS tag to be relevant, needed, useful, ...? Now, we have a discussion if templates are "content" which can be "rescued" somehow, or are just navigational tools, or something else. Furthermore, it is absoluetly unclear if the RfC was in the end about TfD or XfD (including MfD, i.e. userpages and so on? What would the ARS do with userpages?). I don't believe the RfC has a consensus or that it could be clear what the conclusion was in the end. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may be more constructive to see if an uninvolved editor could see if my read on consensus is accurate or not and if not suggest a way forward. Given the acrimony I'm hesitant to start quibbling over examples and hypotheticals. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Doing... currently reading the discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- In general, I agree with Benjiboi's assessment in that there does seem to be a rough consensus for including the templates within the project scope. That aside, the potential benefits of doing so outweigh the concerns, in my opinion as an uninvolved administrator. Fram raised a good point above; an example or two would indeed be useful. As well, it is disappointing that the discussion was bloated with back-and-forth arguing, for lack of a better word, but when it boils down, consensus here seems to be on Benjiboi's side. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Evaluation - I spent quite some time reading the discussion, condensing the arguements, and weighing people's rationale. The signal-to-noise ratio in the comments and replies could have been better, but I think I have a clear picture of consensus. Note that the original proposal concerned TfD, but the majority of the arguments discussed XfD. In my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, there is rough consensus for the following:
- All items (XfD) that are "rescuable" (can be improved, cleaned up, sourced, notability demonstrated) should go to the rescue squad (get tagged with {{rescue}}).
- Items (XfD) that are not "rescuable" (cannot be improved, cleaned up, sourced, notability demonstrated) must not be tagged with {{rescue}}
- Using {{rescue}} (or other means) to canvass for !votes in a deletion discussion must be highly discouraged.
- Seconded. Re-evaluation in a couple months is not a bad suggestion though. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) +note 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Appreciate this and bit by bit we'll work through this. In reality we have learned that no matter what we do, all templates are abused and misapplied at times. To cause the least disruption we encourage ARS members to simply focus on rescuing items they can and don't stress on the rest. So if someone adds {{rescue}} to something we can't help on? It's ignored or maybe we'll comment on alternatives to why we can't help. One of the efforts that was stalled here because of the edit-warring was creating a "so you've used the rescue tag" as an auto-message for whoever places the tag. This should help in the case of a potential repeat "abuser". Our goal woudld be to get them to add the sourcing and notability or at least understand why an item likely would be deleted (it's not personal). As well as helping them understand wikiways and policies. I know, admirable, but I think it's worth a try. It's also worth noting that when folks make poor comments at XfD, regardless of the nature, they should be address and summarily weighted by the closer. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: As an uninvolved but invited commenter, I couldn't put it better than LinguistAtLarge's analysis.
(But I will ramble, in case it is helpful...) Any system if abused will start to break, so don't abuse it else ARS will stop being useful altogether. As a side-suggestion, it might be a good idea to offer alternatives for cases where it might be disputed whether something is "rescuable" or not - if you think another editor will seriously doubt the applicability, then instead use the following methods: [list alternatives at the {{rescue}} /doc page and at the WP:ARS mainpage]. Such as, a pointer to one of the WikiProject Deletion sorting lists, so that additional eyeballs can be gathered in an appropriate way. Lastly, if it starts to become an insurmountable problem, agree to reevaluate the change in a few weeks or months. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC) - Comment As another invited but uninvolved administrator, I'll agree that there is a rough consensus. I think A Man In Black is correct to have concerns though. If these TfD alerts only translate into "keep" votes and no actual content improvement, then their purpose would appear to be canvassing only. I'd also caution against the dismissive and even biting treatment AMIB's criticisms received. His views aren't contradictory to this project, but his criteria does seem to be more strident. That's not a bad thing, and I'd argue that his responses here show that he has really thought through what needs rescuing far beyond just voting keep at every AfD. AniMatetalk 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- AMIB has shown a rather persistent disdain for this project and has been causing, IMHO, stress to the project for a long time. They do have some valid concerns but that is seperate from the regular accusations. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replying with more disdain isn't really addressing this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was in the process of trying to address the last set of accusations when you started edit warring to remove a link to a TfD. I think it's clear you don't approve of this project, sticking around to poke and warn us to not break rules seems like a really bad idea. You've offered some constructive criticism at times but that is harder to hear when added with the more divisive issues. Let's agree that you have some valid points but if no one is hearing them it doesn't matter. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Attack, attack, attack, archive. I am "accusing" your proposal of not being a good one, based on your stated goals and reasoning, as well as existing Wikipedia policy. I'm not impugning your good faith or the good faith of the project as a whole; but I don't approve of this proposal. There is tremendous potential for abuse in what this project is allowed to do and in this project's tools, however, and as such a certain level of justification of the good that can be accomplished versus the risk of abuse is necessary. I'm "sticking around" to see that good work done, and "warn" that the tools should not be misused. (Do you have an argument that doesn't involve attacking me?) I'm still uncomfortable with your (lack of) an explanation of what good adding the {{rescue}} tag to non-articles will do, and "bringing more eyes to deletion discussions" is exactly the abuse I've been protesting. That's what canvassing is; bringing a group of like-minded editors to a discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's really hard to accept anything you have to say when it's delivered in this way. We've had an RfC and consensus has been reached with agreement that {{rescue}} can indeed be used on TfD's. This is what you were edit-warring over and the consensus has gone against your take on the issue despite your repeated assertions of canvassing and abuse - potential or otherwise. Your alarmist approach is unhelpful and now you seem prepared to simply disrupt. I doubt that you can find I've attacked you at all, if you feel i have I apologize. I'm simply trying to do the work that this Wikiproject does which apparently you don't approve. It is also your belief that {{rescue}} doesn't belong on non-article XfDs but this RfC has shown consensus against you there as well. I also accept you may sincerely believe that having more eyes on a XfD is harmful in some ways - perhaps that's a more theoretical discussion for various XfD boards to take up? These beliefs are yours to have and hold as you see fit but how you behave is impacting this project negatively and needs to stop. You threatened me if I posted a TfD link here so I started an RfC to put the issue to rest, consensus has sided that rescue tags can be used on TfDs and this is directly attributable to your helping the community have a discussion centered on this issue. Every question you have stated and every generalized "concern" has also been addressed. Belabouring this further suggests an interest not in improving this project and the work we do but in disrupting the work we do. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't address my argument. You can call me a gaptoothed baboon if you like, but you need to actually address my arguments instead of attacking my person.
Bringing editors sympathetic to your viewpoint to a discussion is canvassing. You've proposed bringing more eyes to deletion discussions, but the fact is that those eyes are almost always sympathetic to someone who would tag an article for {{rescue}}. (A Nobody saying "Much as I hate to vote for deletion on an article tagged with {{rescue}}..." is an especially clear example.) Bringing this project's eyes onto the deletion discussion, instead of on content that is up for deletion, is not appropriate. A number of closers here have pointed out that this needs to be kept in mind.
Now, there are some decent arguments for good that can be done on templates that are up for deletion; I respectfully disagree on how many templates are deleted because they are badly implemented versus how many are deleted because they are bad ideas. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't address my argument. You can call me a gaptoothed baboon if you like, but you need to actually address my arguments instead of attacking my person.
- It's really hard to accept anything you have to say when it's delivered in this way. We've had an RfC and consensus has been reached with agreement that {{rescue}} can indeed be used on TfD's. This is what you were edit-warring over and the consensus has gone against your take on the issue despite your repeated assertions of canvassing and abuse - potential or otherwise. Your alarmist approach is unhelpful and now you seem prepared to simply disrupt. I doubt that you can find I've attacked you at all, if you feel i have I apologize. I'm simply trying to do the work that this Wikiproject does which apparently you don't approve. It is also your belief that {{rescue}} doesn't belong on non-article XfDs but this RfC has shown consensus against you there as well. I also accept you may sincerely believe that having more eyes on a XfD is harmful in some ways - perhaps that's a more theoretical discussion for various XfD boards to take up? These beliefs are yours to have and hold as you see fit but how you behave is impacting this project negatively and needs to stop. You threatened me if I posted a TfD link here so I started an RfC to put the issue to rest, consensus has sided that rescue tags can be used on TfDs and this is directly attributable to your helping the community have a discussion centered on this issue. Every question you have stated and every generalized "concern" has also been addressed. Belabouring this further suggests an interest not in improving this project and the work we do but in disrupting the work we do. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Attack, attack, attack, archive. I am "accusing" your proposal of not being a good one, based on your stated goals and reasoning, as well as existing Wikipedia policy. I'm not impugning your good faith or the good faith of the project as a whole; but I don't approve of this proposal. There is tremendous potential for abuse in what this project is allowed to do and in this project's tools, however, and as such a certain level of justification of the good that can be accomplished versus the risk of abuse is necessary. I'm "sticking around" to see that good work done, and "warn" that the tools should not be misused. (Do you have an argument that doesn't involve attacking me?) I'm still uncomfortable with your (lack of) an explanation of what good adding the {{rescue}} tag to non-articles will do, and "bringing more eyes to deletion discussions" is exactly the abuse I've been protesting. That's what canvassing is; bringing a group of like-minded editors to a discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was in the process of trying to address the last set of accusations when you started edit warring to remove a link to a TfD. I think it's clear you don't approve of this project, sticking around to poke and warn us to not break rules seems like a really bad idea. You've offered some constructive criticism at times but that is harder to hear when added with the more divisive issues. Let's agree that you have some valid points but if no one is hearing them it doesn't matter. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replying with more disdain isn't really addressing this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- AMIB has shown a rather persistent disdain for this project and has been causing, IMHO, stress to the project for a long time. They do have some valid concerns but that is seperate from the regular accusations. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Outdent. Despite your claims I still haven't attacked you. I may disagree with you but I respect your right to have and voice your opinion and you seem to be doing so repeatedly. Perhaps we're talking past each here, I'm personally not invested or interested in arguing with you or anyone else. You seem to be holding onto a theory that rescue tag equals canvassing yet the community has generally agrred to allow things to move forward at this time suggesting that if problems appear then perhaps re-address the issue with solid evidence. As for which argument you feel I haven't addressed, I actually have. I think I even repeated it because you asked again. You'll find that informatin in the RfC discussion itself. I'm not sure anyone will ever convince you the rescue tag on TfDs isn't canvassing but luckily there is consensus to allow it so it seems no one has to win you over at this point. -- Banjeboi 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I too was invited, and have no previous involvement. I slogged through the discussion, and found there to be consensus. Here's my take on the canvassing dilemma: The project's name is misleading, focusing on the save, rather than the fix. I think that editors pulled in for a rescue should edit the article without voting in the deletion discussion. That's the purpose of the rescue squad: to fix articles, not be a vote-wielding special interest group. Though the rescuers should be allowed and expected to report in the discussion on what they fixed. Then the closing admin can decide if the changes made address the concerns raised. To avoid conflict of interest, the closing admin should not be on the ARS. The Transhumanist 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonable sounding; the easy part first is that closing admins need to be impartial and handle those calls on their end. I wouldn't support restricting how ARS members are involved on the AFD except that policies are followed. The name issue is being discussed but I disagree rescue is more about keep than fix but it's worth noting the concerns. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: the concerns are quite important. The "rescue" group should possibly be retitled to "fixup" (or that their role would be fully clarified) as to their role for fixing-up salvageable content rather than "rescue" anything up for deletion. Maybe "Salvage Review Crew" would be a good re-title.. just sharing my 2 cents. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Such ideas are impractical because AFD is open to all and there is no way to identify and allocate specific roles to the participants. One might wish that all participated in the manner of User:Uncle G who often makes very helpful observations without expressing a Keep/Delete vote. I suppose that he is trying to encourage collegiate research and editing rather than adversarial voting but his is a lone instance of such exemplary behaviour, alas. Current practise is that both the nominator of an AFD and the article's authors are encouraged to participate. The ARS seem more qualified to comment than drive-by per-nom voters, as the process of rescue usually involves careful study of the topic and its sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Renaming ideas are helpful but realistically I think rescue is fine. We are, after all the last layer of emergency help for content that will be deleted. Salvage is after an item has been thrown out. Fixup applies to all clean-up projects whereas we specialize in XfD. I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer rescue=vote keep and generally no group should base its naming decisions on a small but persistent group of critics. The LGBT community would be the "We're not all diseased and depraved freaks coalition." Not suggesting you're a critic - you may be I don't know - but these issues have been discussed rather extensively over many many months and all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address til recently when this RfC was enacted to help stop edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- "all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address"? Yeah right, they have been either ignored or supported by the members of the ARS, and only addressed by the "critics". Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion is duly noted. -- Banjeboi 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- "all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address"? Yeah right, they have been either ignored or supported by the members of the ARS, and only addressed by the "critics". Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Renaming ideas are helpful but realistically I think rescue is fine. We are, after all the last layer of emergency help for content that will be deleted. Salvage is after an item has been thrown out. Fixup applies to all clean-up projects whereas we specialize in XfD. I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer rescue=vote keep and generally no group should base its naming decisions on a small but persistent group of critics. The LGBT community would be the "We're not all diseased and depraved freaks coalition." Not suggesting you're a critic - you may be I don't know - but these issues have been discussed rather extensively over many many months and all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address til recently when this RfC was enacted to help stop edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)