Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit warring on this talk page

Without naming names or taking sides, I will say that the refactoring and removal of other contributor's comments on this page and on the list itself is unacceptable behavior in Wikipedia. Keep it up and I will go to WP:ANI. I will kill them all and let God sort it out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeez. Violent rhetoric much? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably the less this forum shows up at ANI the better. At some point disruption is the only concern and no one cares who is right or wrong, only that the disruption ceases. Normally this is done by blocking a page from editing which could be done to this group (again right or wrong doesn't matter - only that the disruption immediately ceases). Suggest that any disputes be done through consensus on this talk page with quick "yes/no" straw polls. -- GreenC 16:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I want this project to succeed. I trust we all do. If you aren't on board for success, find another project. It was only a metaphor, which some of you may not understand. Hopefully this got everyone's attention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see the recent edit warring in the history of the list page (and I agree with those who say that it was perfectly OK to make that listing). But I don't see any recent reverting or refactoring on this talk page. Do I misunderstand something? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone please vote on the code of conduct

In case you don't notice, I started a strawpoll in an above section Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Straw_Poll. The discussion seems to have died off so time to just make a decision. Dream Focus 03:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor conduct

This project has been under continuous criticism for quite some time. There are two passages in the instructions and "Code of Conduct" that, if followed, may help alleviate canvassing concerns and adhere to the core principle of article improvement:

• "Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice." Although it is standard practice across the board to mention any project notifications that led you to a discussion, this is rarely followed here.
• "Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded." Your rationale should not be a joke, pun or other attempt at humor. Neither should it be an explanation of why you believe it doesn't need improvement. Please limit entries to articles that you feel can be cleaned up or otherwise improved to address concerns raised at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The first one was edit warred in by people not part of the project, they just getting together on someone's talk page, and coming over and forcing their way. No Wikipedia editor on any Wikiproject is required to do that, so no reason why we would be either. No reason for that to even be there, so someone who hasn't been reverted three times already please remove it. Dream Focus 19:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That spectacularly inaccurate description is referring to me. I've advocated "keep" at the MfD for the project page. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You added in nonsense all regular members were against. [1] after you discussed it with others on a talk page somewhere. They then came and edit warred it back in whenever someone who in the ARS tried to remove it. Check the history. [2] I find it ridiculous that those not part of a project can edit war in a ridiculous rule that no one is ever going to follow nor should be required to. The edit summaries show you claiming it would prevent canvassing which you were certain was happening. Anyway, more people noticing this now, can someone just remove that nonsense? I think I reverted it three times already so can't do it again. Dream Focus 21:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be just up to regular members to decide. This affects the Wikipedia project beyond them. And this is not a regular Wikiproject, so that objection strikes me as a bit weak. It is a Wikiproject which is tasked with rescuing articles, with all that that implies. El_C 23:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But it would be prudent, I think, for the Wikiproject regulars to come together and say something like: 'We know you have concerns regarding inclusionist-minded canvassing. That's not what we're about. But just to reassure you, we are willing to declare when we arrive at an XfD, that we were brought there via notification at our Wikiproject.' It just seems sensible, for the Wikiproject's own reputation. El_C 00:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dream Focus brought up the point that the clause isn't enforceable, anyway. I honestly don't have a good response to that. El_C 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No one else is required to reveal where or how they learned about an AfD. And there is already a rule for the addition of {{rescue list}} in the AfD so it's not like anything is hidden. On a personal level it is a bit of a privacy issue to document how and why I decided to participate on a page. Particularly in AfD where it can be used against you. -- GreenC 00:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think most of the disagreement is about whether use of that template really is or really should be a rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not the kind of thing that needs to be enforced. But anyone who chooses not to bother with it is setting themselves up for accusations of canvassing. It seems a lot more prudent to just do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see there being a privacy issue, this is all happening on-wiki. El_C 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I said this at the now-closed ANI thread: There are certainly ways that the project can be seen as canvassing for keep, but there is also a very straightforward way to avoid any whiff of canvassing. Just post at the AfD that the AfD has been listed at the Rescue List. Then everything is transparent. (And I urge admins who close the discussions take that listing into account when evaluating consensus.)... In my opinion, having a project that "rescues" and fixes keep-able pages is a good thing, and it's just a matter of the conduct of individual editors. Really folks, just disclose at the AfD that you have listed the AfD at ARS, and then everyone will be a lot calmer. And that really sums up how I see it, in terms of the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

But GreenC said that this is already a rule (adding {{rescue list}} to XfDs). The question is should the Wikiproject make a pledge for individual editors to disclose if they saw an XfD listed at the Wikiproject itself. I'm open to persuasion. El_C 00:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The "rule" to which GreenC was referring is the sentence in the Code of Conduct that I added, about posting the template at listed AfDs. And again, I don't see it as a "rule" that needs to be enforced, but rather as something that is simply the prudent thing to do. If you don't do it, so be it, but don't be surprised if somebody complains that you canvassed. By the way, the past discussion about this issue is at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template, where the history of what happened can be seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If members of the Wikiproject pledge to that code of conduct, that will inspire a lot of confidence in the Wikiproject's legitimacy and good faith. El_C 01:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And I don't even think that they need to pledge. Just make a good-faith effort to do it, instead of fighting it as if it were an attack on them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Policy already requires the same thing as the current wording of the CoC, which has been stable for about a year. Removing it would not actually change the obligation on this project's membership to comply with policy, but the act of removing it would send a very poor message about how this project views said policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Kindly post whether it should be kept or erased and keep the discussion in the section above.

• "Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice."
• Remove Dream Focus 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Comments that do not provide a rationale or explanation are likely to be discounted. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? The discussion was up above, no one convincing the others with arguments so no reason to drag it out. This bit has been there for a year now and never once has it been followed nor will it ever be, nor can you enforce it. No Wikiproject is required to do this, never has been, and never will. Those who support it are against the project and constantly spreading false accusations of canvassing, which have been disproven time and again. The fact that members of a Wikiproject can't control what's on their own page, but those wishing to eliminate it can, is simply ridiculous. Dream Focus 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per my simultaneous comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think a straw poll will be helpful. Chances are only the editors who are already involved in this (minus Jytdog, who committed wiki-suicide last December because he was fed up with the project, deciding to go out with a bang by violating WP:OUT and getting site-banned by ArbCom for refusing to apologize -- going into detail to clarify that his ban had nothing whatsoever to do with ARS, canvassing, deletion, or anything of the sort) will comment, and we already know how all of us feel about the matter. This was, if I recall correctly, brought before the community in a fashion last year (I think it was on the talk page of a prominent admin, but I might be mistaken), with everyone who wasn't already an ARS member agreeing that the note about canvassing needed to stay in. Re-counting the same !votes with one or two new keepist "there is no canvassing" !votes added and Jytdog no longer around doesn't indicate a change in the previous community consensus on this matter so much as ... just that, one or two new anti-deletion voices wanting to be allowed violate the canvassing policy. (Also, both the recently-closed MFD and the recently-closed ANI had unanimous consensus among those who mentioned it that the page should stay and that posting here wasn't canvassing as long as the COC said what it did and this project's members followed it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove It is not a "Guideline on canvassing." That assumes a fact that is erroneous. There is no WP:Canvassing.

When AFD postings are done on other projects, that fact is noted on the AFD discussion. We should do that too. We should be an open book.

It is an ethical and practical guideline, and if it is refactored to change its wording and emphasis, then I would support Keeping it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment As a matter of practice, I simply put the notice that it was listed here into an AFD discussion as soon as it is listed. It has nothing to do with canvassing, IMO. And I may or may not !Vote at the AFD; and that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the notice posting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove People come across discussions in a variety of ways and there's no general requirement to explain how one found a discussion that one participates in. Doing so would be clutter which would tend to distract from the substantive points being made. The sentences in question are neither policy nor guideline and so should be dismissed per WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Andrew has been called out in the past for a poor understanding of what constitutes "canvassing". Yeah, it's possible his comment (which didn't make a lot of sense and was mostly just an ad hominem against the OP) was just petty "revenge" against an editor he didn't like, but he did frame his comment as a "Not canvassing" !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - In the interest of transparency. If there is a problem with WP:ARS participants piling on with non-policy-based or poorly-supported "Keep" !votes, this will help alert closing admins. This is something that the project should be in favor of since it would not affect editors who actually do the work of improving articles. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No one who is lazy/badfaithy enough to vote stack is going to be so conscientious as informing they read about it at ARS. -- GreenC 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — absence of which has the danger of bringing the Wikiproject into disrepute. This should be an RfC, so that it isn't only an internal Wikiproject matter. El_C 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove It is unenforceable leading to bad faith assumptions and setting the stage for incriminating disruptions. It is a violation of privacy, no one else needs to reveal how or why they decide to participate in an AfD (I often see cases that must be discussed off-site but there is no way to know). There is already a suggestion to tag the AfD page when it gets included at ARS, no problem. Furthermore it does nothing to appease canvassing concerns, if anything it will inflame it by making an issue over it. Canvassing concerns about ARS are fundamentally bad faith assumptions, bad faith can never be appeased it will always exist. -- GreenC 16:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This needs to be a community RfC. If the passage is removed based on this farcical "straw poll", I will open such an RfC myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Why do editors think they can come to a group...and force their version of a code of conduct on the groups participants? The fact that some of these same editors who make it their mission to undermine the credibility of the ARS - are then allowed to vote on the rules governing the ARS is complete foolishness. Members of a group agree to their own rules and code of conduct. User:GreenC has valid points about privacy, and good faith Ivotes. As an aside, I am quite proud of the ARS crew. Hold your heads high! The ARS is both collegial, and important. I am very happy that I am allowed to be a member of this group. User:Lightburst 21:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? WP:OWN. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:OAS? However this addition...is unenforceable and assumes bad faith. And there are those voting here who would destroy or remove the group if given the opportunity. My point is this kind of democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. User:Lightburst 22:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I definitely meant what I said. And just a few days ago I argued for keeping the project, when it was brought to MfD, so I'm hardly trying to shut it down. The bottom line is that everything at Wikipedia is subject to community consensus, and we never have subprojects that get to make their own rules in place of existing policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove – And this part should be removed until we know the outcome of this poll. The addition of such dubious and problematic material needs to occur AFTER the discussion, not before. During a deletion discussion, the closer is supposed to assess the quality of the argument, not the number of votes. Looking at previous deletion discussions that Article Rescue Squadron has been involved in, it's clear that the focus is assessing notability and expanding content. That's what ARS does, that's what everyone else ought to do also, and that's what the closer of a deletion discussion should take into account. It's clear enough that the addition of the contentious text is a misguided attempt to "fix" an issue that unequivocally never existed in the first place.Worldlywise (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a highly counter-factual description of what actually happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question. How is this straw poll going to be closed? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter. Seems apparent there isn't consensus one way or another, even if one takes a hard-line position of NC = Keep that neatly papers over a reality of lack of community support. Probably it needs to be refactored in a way that is more acceptable, the current version is too controversial is what this straw poll is showing. -- GreenC 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate that answer. In my opinion, there is a lot of room for revising the contested material, and it would be more productive to work collaboratively on that. In the event that there are some sub-aspects of the wording where editors here continue to have no consensus, it could be very good to have a true RfC to get more input. If editors here are receptive to any of that, in place of continuing the straw poll, I would welcome that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If anyone expresses an interest in working on that in the next couple of days, that will be most appreciated. If not, I'm going to start a real RfC at the Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion a community RfC at Village Pump would be the best way to set clear, agreed-upon expectations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The solution is to refactor the controversial portion so it is acceptable to all parties. To that end I have not seen any proposals or BRD diffs, no steps have been taken to resolve it, despite all the good arguments and points made here. If you are trying to push a favored position with a VP RFC, there is nothing more to be said other than "see you court". As many previous ANI/MFD/RFC have shown getting consensus for anything with this group is not terribly easy unless you also have support from regular members, since it is their co-operation that is required to make it work in practice. -- GreenC 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't want to see anyone in court. I'll create a first draft of possible revisions, in talk, within the next few days. And then we'll see where we go from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. See also my comments below. There are two types of notification and we already do one. This poll was about removing the requirement for a second notification. -- GreenC 06:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep/retain Seems perfectly reasonable. pbp 23:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove It seems part of the problem is: Is this a list or a noticeboard? If we make it into a standard list like the other projects, then the standard "included" is the norm, without individuals saying where they saw it. If it is a noticeboard, I think some of them say you should post where you heard about it, but I am skeptical about how consistently editors do that. And what if you heard about it several places before editing it? Maybe the tools can help call out suspected "canvassing" in a consistent manner, be it for or against. StrayBolt (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Per Andrew D., this has no reason to be here. Naomi.piquette (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a quite reasonable and rather minor step, especially given the concerns expressed above (and previously, many times over the years). I mean, even deletion sorting involves a post to the AfD page itself -- and in that case the uniting factor is interest in the topic, not interest in keeping articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• BTW as this would affect potentially a lot of AfDs, and given there have been many more public discussions about this project in the past, making this into an RfC rather than something only pagewatchers will see seems appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Without objection I would like to close this straw pool. It is causing confusion. The RFC isn't about informing the AfD, that is already being done and is uncontroversial. It is about additional secondary level notification requirement on a per-person basis ie. every person who !votes includes a statement that they came there because of ARS as part of their !vote. This in addition to the normal template notification that the AfD was included at the ARS noticeboard which is already done and non-controversial. The RfC is unclear about two levels of notification and many Keepers are !voting based on the understanding that there must be notification of any kind. Furthermore people seem freaked out about a "straw poll". It has gone off the rails. -- GreenC 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that -- several of the !voters on both sides have made statements that make it clear they are talking about the content that was added last year. The present dispute essentially started when an editor removed virtually all the text that had been in the CoC since last March; very few are making a distinction between informing the AfD and individual AfD !voters mentioning that they came from ARS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The initial proposal does not make clear any of that history, which we can't assume everyone knows about, nor can we assume everyone !voting here understood there are two types of notifications: AFD-wide and personal disclosure. It actually has been a point of confusion, see threads below with Tryptofish. None of the Keepers made a recognition that notification is already being done, no one explains why there need to be TWO notifications, they only say there needs to be notification, but then ignore the fact notification are already done. -- GreenC 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Code of Conduct" be renamed?

Some editors say that they are troubled about the enforceability of the Code of Conduct. I don't really see the need for regarding it as something that needs to be "enforced". It's the kind of thing where it's sensible to follow it, but if you choose not to, that's a choice you can make (and not be surprised if other editors find fault with that choice). Would it be better to simply rename it? Perhaps to "Best Practices"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And those who post a listing at ARS should be encouraged to contemporaneously put the notice at the AFD. It is best practice, and cuts down on the negative nattering. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you consider it the best practice for every single editor to state they saw it on this list before going to the AFD? You know that's never going to happen. A notice that it is on the Rescue list is all that is required, and most do that anyway already, just like all Wikiprojects do. The other bit is just total nonsense and you know it. Dream Focus 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said that every single editor should say they saw it on the ARS list. What I thought I was saying was that the fact of its being on the list should be put on the AFD. That is all I meant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Should it be revised instead of deleting it?

I can see the point about stating that one saw the listing. Instead of deleting the sentence, would it make better sense to revise it? How about changing This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice, and use Template:Rescue list to something like This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was to delete that one part of it. I thought I was clear enough when I suggested it. It already says to use Template:Rescue list, that not the part we're discussing. Dream Focus 21:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you were proposing to delete all of that, and just forgot the last part of the second sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what should be done. But as Dream Focus says, it already says this, so changing the wording would just add a duplication. -- GreenC 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Erasing entries on the ARS list

• The erasure of entries continues. I posted a message on User:Dlthewave's talk page. The editor has erased entries from several ARS members in the past weeks. My entry was erased today with an edit summary accusing me of canvassing. The editor's actions have been disruptive. If the editor believes there is something wrong with an entry, reverting is the least-collegial method available. This constant disruption steals time from the actual work of building an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. It is not acceptable to erase someone's post like that. Dream Focus 04:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. User:Dlthewave's conduct is disruptive to the project. If this pattern continues I promise I will personally take it to WP:ANI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I, too, would suggest not doing that. It would be better to take concerns to talk, instead. There is a real need to lower the degree of animosity around here. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree, we should lower the animosity here. Stop people from coming to a project they don't contribute to and making false accusations constantly. Dream Focus 17:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for lowering the animosity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• We can all try to be Kinder and gentler. However, that is a Two way street, and presumes that the disruption stops. If and when it continues, it needs to be called out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kinder and gentler disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggested template revisions

Sorry that it took me a while to get this done, but here are my suggestions about the "Code" template. On the left is the present-day version, for ease of comparison. On the right are my suggested changes.

ARS Code of Conduct Note that this wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Wikipedia's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

Project Best Practices Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. Please be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Wikipedia's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

I've made two changes: the title at the top of the template, and the wording in the controversial part. I hope that this is helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• For reference here it was before it was changed without consensus.

Project Code of conduct Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Wikipedia's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I object very strongly that you describe that change as having been without consensus. That is untrue and gratuitously inflammatory. It was a controversial change, and did not have unanimous consent, but that is not at all the same thing. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template. We can waste time relitigating that earlier discussion, or we can move forward and consider what I suggest here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You can object. However you displayed two templates. And you made them both. The one you posted on the left was allowed to stand. The one I posted (below your two) was before you altered it. Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This needless personalization of every square inch of battleground is why this project attracts so much concern from other editors. I contributed to making the template shown first here, but I did not, by a mile, make those changes alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus by the Wikiproject members were against it, as you well know. You posted on a talk page with others complaining about the ARS, and you then all came over and edit warred it in. Just change it back already since you know no one is ever going to take your nonsense bit serious anyway. And we already had this discussion above. It already says to use the Template:Rescue list in AFD on the left of where this will appear, where it explains how to add things to the list. No reason having it in two places. At least you are finally willing to finally accept that the "This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice," nonsense should be eliminated, that what everyone was complaining about at the start, and throughout this long drawn out pointless debate. Dream Focus 00:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish I understand you feel you have the right to change the template the ARS. The members do not want this forced on them, and as Dream Focus has said, there is no way to enforce it. As it is every item placed on the rescue list gets a notification on the AfD.

A few weeks ago you forced this change on the group, and a straw poll was initiated: the poll was in favor of removing the changes you made (left template). So now you posted the template you forced on the group, and said do we want that one ...or another one you also made. I do not think my attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND instead I am puzzled. Nearly everything on the project happens with consensus, so why is that not the case in this situation? As an act of good faith, you should return the template that you originally removed and then perhaps your two templates you posted above can be considered. Just a thought. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please get the facts right. A few weeks ago, I did nothing of the sort. A few weeks ago, someone else, not me, made some attempts to have this project shut down. I argued in favor of keeping the project. In the reaction against that stuff happening, a straw poll was started about the template.

And since I'm talking here about getting the facts right, you actually did not post, here, the version of the template that was in effect before the controversies started. You got that wrong. You need to look more carefully at the edit history, to find the version that preceded the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• before it was changed without consensus is a bogus lie, by someone who showed up a full year after it had been changed in accordance with consensus and was stable, and started edit-warring over it. This lie should be retracted, and if not the editor should be page-banned to prevent further disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Statements such as "Consensus by the Wikiproject members were against it" and "The members do not want this forced on them" imply that the opinions of "members" carry some special weight. The fact is that although wikiprojects have a certain level of autonomy, those who participate in the project or appear on the member list do not get do decide how WP:CANVASS and other guidelines apply to their activities. Since WP:ARS conduct directly affect our deletion process, it is entirely appropriate for this to be a community discussion. I would suggest posting this as an RfC at Village Pump after this discussion is complete. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support the "Project Best Practices" proposed by Tryptofish. It is helpful to have the specific expectation that folks post the Rescue List template at AfD instead of the nonspecific "follow the canvassing guideline" advice, and this version omits the controversial requirement that each editor mention they saw it at ARS. I would also suggest that this be ratified in some way by the community so that we can't use the "unenforceable" argument to later ignore whatever it is that we agree on. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  The "unenforceable" argument I used was for the part you are suggesting eliminating now, since you can't force anyone to tell you what Wikiproject list they saw before going to an AFD. It has been ignored by everyone for over a year since its just ridiculous. As for the other bit, almost everyone already mentions when they added something to the Rescue List. From time to time I forget, then someone else adds it for me. Having the instructions on putting a notification in the AFD in two separate parts of the same page right next to one another, doesn't make it twice as likely someone will see and remember it. Dream Focus 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I want to thank dlthewave for those very reasonable comments. Other editors, unfortunately, are continuing to rehash past grievances instead of discussing what I actually proposed. Ironically, what I have proposed goes in the direction that these editors seem to want, so I would have thought that it would have been seen as, at a minimum, a step in the right direction. Please look again. If not, I will indeed take this to the Village Pump as dlthewave said. It might be a lot more palatable to instead take "yes" for an answer here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - We should break up the list into two types. One should be a similar list to most other projects where the automated tools help adding AfDs to our list as well and adding the notification to the AfD. The other can be more freeform with ARS discussion. Also, Focus on improving content does not exclude arguing keep. There are bad AfDs like there are bad articles. We should also have some list of PRODs which can have the same results as an AfD, but without the consensus. StrayBolt (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad AFDs don't need ARS to fail. It's the Article Rescue Squadron -- showing up to !vote keep when the article was in no danger of being deleted to begin with isn't "rescuing" anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any real support from the active members of the project for making the changes that I suggested. I'm disappointed about that, because I would have thought that the changes would be seen as a step in the direction that active members of the project have been saying that they want. I guess that it would be best just to leave the Code as it currently is. Please note that I think that rolling it back to an earlier version should not happen unless a community consensus for doing so is gotten at the Village Pump or somewhere similar. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - because it is an improvement over the current and more in line with what I do. The diffs between the two are: Project Code of conduct -> Project Best Practices and disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice, and use Template:Rescue list. -> use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.. I think this is more in line with the other Wikiproject AfD lists. No one has commented on making ARS have a standard AfD list. StrayBolt (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• After giving this some time and thinking it over, and taking into account StrayBolt's support as well as the implied views of other editors here, I've made this revision to the template: [3]. I left the title as it was, as "Code of conduct", but I removed the controversial phrase about disclosing where one saw the notice. It seems to me that removing that part is something that a lot of editors want, and it's reasonable to remove it. So I figure the best thing to do was removing it, in the interests of putting to rest at least some of the controversies here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pick the best leave the rest

User:Lightburst said "Take a look at how many of our rescue list ended in delete". We can improve by picking articles for ARS that have a better chance of succeeding, triage. "Pick the best leave the rest" (squadron slogan). I think a good candidate will have historical significance (ie. not living people/companies), sources in books (Google Books and/or Archive.org books). Articles on general topics like "salt" or "horror novels made into movies" (made-up examples that are probably notable) I find less interesting and harder to defend then more specific topics like certain people, books, or events. These are only my opinions. -- GreenC 18:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: makes sense. I do pick the harder ones. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Can someone fix this draft up since there are some POV issues. Per WP:ATD, if not then chuck it. Draft:Ronald L Dart Josalm64rc (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, did you mean to link something? Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Did you mean Draft:Ronald_L_Dart_Evangelistic_Association? Dream Focus 23:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst's note on List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

The instructions on the project are a bit confusing to me: they tell editors to include a justification for why the content should be retained, but they also tell editors to make sure their notices are neutral and to comply with WP:CANVASS. I'm not sure how to thread that needle exactly, but User:Lightburst's thread, here, seems completely non-neutral. The edit summary and notice both frame it as "scrubbing dissenting voices" and rhetorically asks whether minority views should be "saved". It reads pretty clearly like a call to action for editors with a certain viewpoint, and it has no real bearing on any aspect of WP:GNG.

I was not familiar with this project previously, and I can see there has been a lot of contention here, but I've seen similar messages called out for campaigning in other venues. Nblund ^talk 01:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: this is not what WP:BRD is. You boldly edited, then you were reverted, now you should discuss. A simple solution would be to rephrase your message. Nblund ^talk 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Nblund: I am taking a break from this. When things go fast like this people get in trouble. I will not repost the article on the ARS list. I do not need to get in a scrap over contradictory listing advice. You have been pressing me here on the ARS list and on two separate AfDs tonight. And now an editor wants to delete the whole project and has twice reverted me. Time to take a step back. Feel free to erase the ARS notice on the article as well, I am not interested in fighting. My purpose is to work on the encyclopedia. No hard feelings on my part. Lightburst (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I collapsed the restored message and tried to offer a more neutral description that I hope captures your original message. I'm not interested in fighting either, but the previous message - to my mind - was inflammatory and mis-characterized the deletion discussion as an effort to "scrub" dissenting voices. Nblund ^talk 03:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• It doesn't much matter how these requests are framed as we are veterans here and so inured to rhetoric. The more that the issue is contested, the more attention it will attract per the Streisand effect. Note also that Nblund advertised their nomination at a forum which is not neutral on this topic. See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Note also that Nblund's user page states that "I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak while I finish a dissertation." See also procrastination and displacement activity. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: this project is subject to the same rules on canvassing that everyone else is subject to. I posted a neutrally worded notice stating that an AFD had been opened in a thread where people were already discussing the article, that's not analogous. Your edit summary here seems misleading, since you unhatted the comment, and I'm not sure why you think it was an improvement over my attempt at a compromise. I definitely don't know what my user page has to do with anything. Nblund ^talk 15:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• No one has the right to erase someone's message. The message seems neutral to me. Dream Focus 00:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How do you justify a message that says, Apparently the dissenting voices must be scrubbed from the internet. as "neutral"? jps (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

They are trying to delete a list of everyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus. The nominator list one reason for wanting it gone as "the article is congenitally WP:UNDUE because it gives an inflated impression of the amount of doubt among actual experts writing in actual academic venues." Many have stated in the discussion have stated such a reason as well, delete it because it might give people the wrong impression, don't want them to believe the dissenting voices should be taken seriously. So they do appear to want the dissenting voices scrubbed from the Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe in that interpretation of the justification for deletion (I don't think the nominator does either, but I won't speak for them), yet I argued for a deletion of the article. So if it doesn't properly characterize my position and I am in the group referenced, how is the message neutral? jps (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So some are deleting it for that reason, and others state other reasons. Perhaps he just saw the first bit and assumed that the reason why. If you take everything personally and want to go on a rage fit, edit warring[4], posting all over the place, [5], trying to delete the project in multiple venues [6] [7], and whining nonstop, even suggesting banning three people from the project who disagree with you [8], then you are the one with the problem not us. Dream Focus 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: ජපස welcome to the talk page. It is hard for us all to build an encyclopedia when you are disruptively editing here. What Dream focus has described above sounds like the behavior of a new editor. However you have much experience on the project. I am asking you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nobody here wants to fight. I did not want to report you anywhere, so I made multiple attempts to get you to come to the discussion. But you blanked my requests and continued the war against this project. It is clear from your repeated listing erasures and tinkering, your latest two forum shopping excursions and your MfD to delete the whole project, that you are engaging in disruptive editing. I hope we can all go back to building the encyclopedia. We are all wasting hours on this drama. It is hard to focus on the original reason for your anger after all of the drama that been generated by the disruptions. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So y'all have no excuse for your non-neutral WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, huh? Good to know. I will be seeking to stop your actions in the future, fair warning. jps (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions on addressing canvassing complaints

Carrying over some comments from the recent AfD: I really do think this is a useful project, but there are several notices here that seem to cross the line in to canvassing. Obviously veteran participants in this project probably have a good idea of how to judge notability questions, but newer participants may not, and I think there are some easy ways to address those complaints without seriously affecting how the project operates:

1. The statement Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia invites non-neutral notices because it essentially tells editors to make a !keep argument in an announcement about an AfD. Users should probably be instructed to avoid making deletion arguments (and avoid commenting on the motivations of the nominators) and instead focus on the ways that the article can be improved rather than asserting that AfDs listed here are prima facie misguided.
2. Notices should not be removed unless they are clearly disruptive or inconsistent with the goals of the project, but editors should be willing to rephrase their notices if there are reasonable complaints about neutrality.

I think those changes would go a long way toward addressing the perennial complaints listed on the talk page here, but I'm open to alternative suggestions. Nblund ^talk 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to rephrase something because someone might allegedly misread it. Dream Focus 00:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Why wouldn't you rephrase an announcement that people were likely to misread? Editors should be willing to make reasonable adjustments to their announcements - this is basic collaborative editing. Nblund ^talk 00:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, you can probably see how, higher on this talk page, I've been involved in a lot of related discussions. Given that this project is, by design, about rescuing content, I think it stands to reason that the only deletion discussions that will be listed here are those that the editor making the listing believes are ones where rescuing is appropriate. And that's OK with me. In my opinion, the most significant protection against the appearance of canvassing is to disclose, at the deletion discussion, that the discussion has been listed here. Although it took a lot of heated discussion to reach an understanding about that, I actually think that the editors here have been doing a very good job with it. For example, at the top of the AfD that I think you are talking about here, I see that Lightburst quite appropriately put such a notice near the top of the AfD page. Myself, I appreciate that very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but the instruction asks posters to explicitly state what should be obvious, and I see several instances where the motivation of nominator are being questioned, which really doesn't look good. I think this is a valuable project, but I'm hesitant to participate here because the most public-facing part of the project looks hostile and partisan rather than collaborative. I don't want to post stuff here if it means editors are going to go to cast aspersions on the nominators and insult anyone who complains. Nblund ^talk 01:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are fair concerns. But no amount of rewording will change people's personalities. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't follow some simply rules we all follow. As I said below, it's particularly dumb since if it makes no difference, then why on earth can't people just follow the normal rules?

I made the exact same point when at least one editor at another wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess) seem to also feel they didn't have to follow the normal canvassing rules. Others suggested they weren't influenced by the canvassing anyway, so I pointed out in that case why don't you just follow the normal rules? AFAIK no one ever had an answer. But in that case at least, I got the impression that most who commented did at least appreciate that these were the rules they we expect to follow.

As we always say, the perception of unfairness tends to me harmful whether or not there is actual unfairness. So doing stuff which is seen as unfair by commenting in a way which is seen en as canvassing helps no one. This wikiproject is always going to receive perceptions it's votestacking. There's nothing that can completely avoid that. But there's no reason to compound that unease on the part of some, by adding campaigning in to it. You go from a situation where people may feel uneasy but accept there's nothing that can be done, to one where people can instead outline a clear area of unfairness that can be fixed relatively easily, but those involved are refusing to do so and so the others are naturally very unhappy.

I'd note that while this project by it's nature has it at an unavoidable extreme level, it isn't completely unique. For example, in most cases when an AFD is mentioned at WP:BLP/N the reason is because whoever it is thinks it needs to be deleted. In fact sometimes there is even discussion about deletion before someone nominates it. Still from what I've seen most people follow the normal canvassing rules when making notifications.

For that matter, while it's hardly simple, there is obviously a frequent view that comes from BLPN participants. While others aren't necessarily in agreement or happy about it, with RfCs and similar most seem to, maybe begrudgingly, accept it without too much complaint in part IMO because mostly the normal canvassing rules are followed. Heck although I dislike people pushing pseudoscience, I don't really agree with some of the stuff they do at WP:FTN. But even they seem to be mostly follow the normal canvassing rules.

I still have no idea why this project feels they need to be different. IMO it's definitely not helping anything, and is instead unnecessarily causing harm.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, what is this nonsense about "Although it took a lot of heated discussion to reach an understanding about that"? Most of us always put the tag in the AFD to mention what wikiproject it was listed in, unless we forgot from time to time. All you did was edit war in some additional criteria that was totally ignored, unenforceable, and you finally removed. Dream Focus 03:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for always discussing things in such a calm and friendly manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tryptofish #unnecessarydrama DF's statement was accurate, and we do not need to relitigate your templates. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• And here I thought they were the project's templates, and I sure don't want any relitigation. But as I said, people have the personalities that they have. And I still thank you for your helpful use of the template at AfD pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comments: Here are just a few successes.
• Elizabeth L. Gardner
• Richard Haine
• Trace Bundy
• Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident
• Daniella van Graas

Some of these took incredible effort.

There are a whole lot of failures because an article can be nominated for deletion many, many times. And if it gets recreated editors shout SALT like they are now on the article Nblund nominated. And there are very few active here (maybe 4) for the reasons you articulated Nblund. We have targets on our backs. We do our best. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We have targets on our backs. I think the most recent MfD demonstrates that this is not even remotely true. There is broad support for the ideals of this project from a broad cross-section of Wikipedia editors, myself included. However: I would be extremely hesitant to list anything here, because it seems like the most active participants have adopted a bunker mentality that is not consistent with collaborative editing. Obviously, if the most active participants here are not interested in improving the tone, then I'm not going to have any chance of persuading you. That sucks. Nblund ^talk 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The trick is to just let it go and not cause disruption, as you say, "There is broad support" for this project, and it may sometimes target your AfD, but it is nothing personal. -- GreenC 15:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

...except, of course, when it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard to imagine such a petty mean-spirited person. -- GreenC 16:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88 Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural close that is how the MfD is closed. And it only went a few hours. But your animosity and assumptions along with the many others do not phase us. No amount of tinkering with the rules will change the assumptions and accusations. Carry on Nblund. All my best. Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've never understood why some people claim they are not influenced by canvassing and therefore we shouldn't worry about the obvious canvassing, but then refuse to follow normal canvassing rules the rest of us follow even though it allegedly makes no difference. If it makes no difference, then there is zero reason you can't just change how you handle things and stop doing stuff that is seen as canvassing. As with most others I think this project does decent work. But unfortunately, it also seems clear that editors here are unwilling to engage with reasonable attempts to stop the perception of canvassing. So I'm not going to get involved any more than this one message. But I will say, refusing to engage in reasonable discussion about problems with the way things are done is only going to harm this project, it always does. It isn't just evil deletionists trying to kill it. It's simply the wider community wanting everyone to follow the same canvassing rules.

  Note that although I am a deletionist, I hardly ever participate in any XfD. [9] Although I'm sure I've said before I'm a deletionist, I suspect you'd have needed to look very hard to find evidence for it since it's nor mentioned on my user page. I'm primarily mentioning this to save the time of anyone who is going to waste their time looking into my history because they want to find a reason to ignore my comments because I'm clearly just some deletionist who hates you all. As that seems to be the way most here are treating any reasonable suggestions you should improve to stop being perceived as being involved in canvassing.

  (I actually find it fairly funny that people are saying it's not personal when the group gets involved with an AfD which I entirely agree would generally be the case. Because you all seem to be taking it very personally when anyone suggests this project needs to change the way they act so it's in line with the way we expect everyone to act.) This is not to say all actions by others here have been sensible or acceptable, e.g. the MfD was clearly just silly, but the mistakes made doesn't change the fact that there are clearly good reasons why people are concerned.

  You have 2 choices. Ignore the mistakes others may have made in their approach with you, and work with those who have pointed out problems with your approach to improve it so it's in line with what the community expects so that you get less complaints and concerns. Or continue to approach things in an unnecessarily adversarial way and completely ignoring such concerns simply because it's difficult to get a consensus from uninvolved parties about forcing you to do anything because frankly it's not worth our time so you're going to get away with it. The former will help aide you noble goals and ensure this project has far greater success, the latter does everyone a major disservice.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Prohibition of domains at WP:RSN

Ever since The Daily Mail RfC of 2017, when the site was prohibited, it started a precedent. Prior to this Wikipedia generally did not prohibit entire websites. Since then, domains have been prohibited on a regular basis, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a partial list and note the steady growth with most prohibitions (aka deprecation) occurring in 2019. There is no system like AfD. Many of these websites should be banned, but all of them? Permanent prohibition or even blacklisting of websites is a worrisome trend because when there is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. At the very least we might create RfCs for carefully considered cases where no RfC is otherwise present. Doing this before prohibition, when discussions are still open, makes more sense then trying to overturn established consensus. -- GreenC 06:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing mentions and controversy

here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A lesson on why WP:ARS is important

Gigliol's Whale merged. There are lots more sources than our fellow editors bothered to find. an across the merger (belatedly).
The claim that there were no sources (except for 'Cryptid fandom') missed this scholarly article. Raynal, Michel; Rubis, Tour (1991). "Cetaceans with two dorsal fins" (PDF). Aquatic Mammals (17.1): 31–36. Retrieved December 15, 2019. Indeed, a routine search here at Google books shows lots of sources. Doesn't anybody bother to click on the links at the top of an AFD before they !vote? Or WP:Before they nominate for deletion? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A perfect example of cetacean needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wut, that is hilarious. Name checks out too. -- GreenC 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Unusual edit in an AfD

I am confused by this edit in an AfD. In the end, it basically was reverted. Any thoughts? StrayBolt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history of the two claimed editors, and taking into account the way signatures are usually attached to edits, this looks like abuse of multiple accounts by a single user. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Berean Hunter, confirmed plus one. See this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

National Emergency Library

National Emergency Library. Internet Archive is making available 1.4 million modern books during the Coronovirus crisis, or end of June whichever is longer. The books are full-view no limits with unlimited checkout (but no d/l). Books can be searched like with Google Books on key words across the entire library. It works globally. -- GreenC 17:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD discussion at the WP:Village Pump

• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to list Redirected articles?

I know this page is where to list articles that are up for deletion, but is there a place to list articles which have been redirected? I have been trying to find sources for video game articles Killer Bees!, and M*A*S*H (video game), and Sorcerer's Apprentice (Atari 2600) but no matter what I add they keep getting redirected with no explanation other than "No indication of notability". Can anyone help? 2601:249:8B80:4050:EDA7:14E1:E7C0:5A51 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Robert S. Harris is currently a stub. Consider creating a sub-section forthe game Killer Bees! in that article and after it becomes too long it can be split out to separate article. It would help shore up the Harris article by adding more sources so that it is not deleted. To answer your question, any sort of page that might be rescued can be listed in the Noticeboard here. -- GreenC 23:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair point! I will see what else I can do for now. 2601:249:8B80:4050:EDA7:14E1:E7C0:5A51 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda

Scores of articles in a proposed mass deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

Is this the right place to list the article --> InnerSloth? The reason I'm asking is because it underwent massive research and expansion from previous state nominated for deletion to current state, post research and expansion project.

Also, 2nd question, separate question, might it be appropriate to ask for a "relist" somewhere, of the deletion discussion, due to the back-and-forth between editors, and also the article is essentially a totally different and expanded article after the research project that went into improving it?

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

'The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• AFD Reopened. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Article before the redirect.

And it's now been DELETED and REDIRECTED. here, Talk:Predictions of the end of Wikipedia: Revision history (Personal attack removed). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WHAT!?!?! The AfD was deemed KEEP... twice. So why can Deacon Vorbis, who nominated the AfD, just override the community consensus? Normal Op (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been following this particular article or AfD, but I've never seen anyone just plain old revert everything to get their way. If Deacon Vorbis wants his way and didn't like the outcome of the AfD, then his next step would be Wikipedia:Deletion review which is for appealing disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions. I'm all for reverting his "override" and he can take it to Deletion Review if he wants. Normal Op (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it back and Deacon reverted my edit with a nonsense edit-summary ("the keep is for merging purposes of any ancillary info"). However, the closing statement was "The result was keep. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether it should be merged or left alone is a question that can be answered outside of AfD." Normal Op (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted again. Deacon is Edit warring. Warning notice posted on his talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is content supposedly of more interest to women being actively deleted from Wikipedia?

Read this academic research paper to find out: "Exploring Systematic Bias through Article Deletions on Wikipedia from a Behavioral Perspective". -- GreenC 04:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Another one of those deletions that beget a "Merger" proposal that is just revisiting the deletion

Here Predictions of the end of Wikipedia. This kind of event on this article seems ironic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Tom Lister Jr.

Actor/wrestler/track star. Just died. Working on WP:ITN. Not in danger of being deleted, but extra sets of hands and eyes could help. Stay safe out there. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN is dead. Perverse result due to sourcing issues. I had similar experiences with Dr. John and Neil Peart. Large articles and prolific important artists; who got willfully ignored at ITN because the vast list of their works did not have sourcing that satisfied the cabal. And both of them got a huge amount of views.

But this article got 110,000 views in the last two days here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

208,000 in seven days. Popular article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've often thought, one could spend years researching and writing a book that sells 10,000 copies if lucky (typical for books) .. or make a Wikipedia article in a few days that has 10k view per month or year, forever. Even if 80% are drive-by or bots etc.. still a large audience are reading your work. -- GreenC 15:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)