7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) →Suggestion 4: I would be the first to acknowledge that an AFD nominator may have tried to do a search before the nomination, and have a good faith belief in the righeousness of their cause. But whether they did if effectively or not is a straight question of fact and appliction of the policy to the evidence. |
7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) →Suggestion 4: inadvertent deletion (that's why they put DELETE KEYS on computers. Human error. |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
::::::Invocation of policy does not amount to a personal attack. You may have thought you did it, but it was poorly done. I have been personally attacked for mentioning [[WP:Before]]. The subjective reaction by the draftor of a poorly considered AFD is no reason to expunge that fact. Noncompliance with [[WP:Before]] ought not to be censored. |
::::::Invocation of policy does not amount to a personal attack. You may have thought you did it, but it was poorly done. I have been personally attacked for mentioning [[WP:Before]]. The subjective reaction by the draftor of a poorly considered AFD is no reason to expunge that fact. Noncompliance with [[WP:Before]] ought not to be censored. |
||
::::::I would be the first to acknowledge that an AFD nominator may have tried to do a search before the nomination, and have a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] belief in the righeousness of their cause. But whether they did if effectively or not is a straight question of fact and appliction of the policy to the evidence. |
::::::I would be the first to acknowledge that an AFD nominator may have tried to do a search before the nomination, and have a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] belief in the righeousness of their cause. But whether they did if effectively or not is a straight question of fact and appliction of the policy to the evidence. |
||
:::::Sorry that you are that thin-skinned, even at its mention. I was not here directing it at you. This was always context dependent. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 19:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:57, 4 November 2021
Article Rescue Squadron | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
The new article about the Mercy dog is on the main page currently as a DYK. I'd not heard of these before and so found it quite interesting. The article is well written and so doesn't need any help but, as our mission is a another sort of rescue, other members may appreciate reading it too. And having dogs around is always a good thing, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I tweaked it and linked it (in and out). Didn't know about these dogs. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- 150,000 page views. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- They tried to delete Kristoffer Domeij. They tried to delete his picture. But they failed and both appeared on the main page where they were seen by over 30,000 readers. In the top hooks of 2021, he joins the Mercy dog at the top of the chart. An inspirational team for the ARS!
- But now the Mercy dog is being threatened again. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!
Seeking Germany-based editors with a subscription to WAZ to assist with clarification in AfD discussion regarding Laura Hoffmann Hmlarson (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
ARS in the discussions
Talk:Performance (textiles) SOSDD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion that concerns WP:ARS
I received notice of a discussion. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It's possible, ARS may end up like WP:MEDCOM & WP:RFC/U, which would likely require an RFC at the appropriate Village Pump page. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:ANI continues
Sigh. Here Riding a rail. A story attributed to Abraham Lincoln has him quoting a victim of being ridden out of town on a rail as having said, "If it weren't for the honor of the thing, I'd just as soon it happened to someone else."[1] Seriously. Walls of text on this project and various editors. An existential attack on WP:ARS. Review and comment if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cuomo, Governor Mario M. (1986). "Abraham Lincoln and Our "Unfinished Work"". Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. 8 (1). hdl:2027/spo.2629860.0008.106.
- Maybe if you hadn’t been harboring a personality cult around perennially disruptive and uncivil user Andrew “The Colonel” Davidson we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Collegialithy and respect is a two way street. Just food for thought.
- But we have not asked to discipline or disband or silence you or your compatriots. We did not go to WP:ANI.
- You've already said your pieces at that page.
- But censorship is something I oppose on principle. So feel free to contribute here, as far as I'm concerned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- My “compatriots” are an imaginary wiki-cabal. Yours are running this very project which everyone’s fighting about. Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The ANI report, is the first time I've heard about ARS. I sometimes participate in AfD, MfD etc, etc. Personally, I've never felt any hostility (to my memory) from any editors, who didn't 'vote' the way I did. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Not winners and losers. Full discussion and review helps. And when there is an outcome, one lives with it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron
Recently I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia 'rescuing' articles that have been put up for deletion too hastily. During this time, I have been aware of the ARS but I have not joined the project. ARS seems to just focus on responding to WP:AfD discussions, with participants highlighting the discussions that they feel warrant attention. There are of course already compilations of pages up for deletion on Wikipedia and putting the spotlight on specific discussions seemed a little pointless.
The current debate at WP:ANI has revealed that this approach is problematic and has given some editors a negative impression of the project. I think that this project could be used in a much more positive way.
Proposal
Remove most if not all of the deletion related (particularly AfD) content from the main project pages. ARS should be about rescuing articles about notable topics that require attention. Whether the article is up for deletion does not need to come into it.
In the future it would be great if the ARS could become part of the WP:BEFORE process as an WP:ATD, where editors who find an article that is not good enough in its current form, but that might be notable, could nominate it for improvement instead of deletion. There are plenty of articles that are nominated for deletion solely because they don't have sufficient references or are written badly. If this project collaborated with nominators more effectively articles could be sent here directly.
If there is consensus for this course of action I would be happy to join the project and help to enact this proposal! SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I self censor my votes. If I run across an AFD nomination, and I can't add sources and/or don't think it should be kept, I do not vote. My voting record will support that, and actually prove that most of the articles on which I vote are in fact kept. And it ordinarily is because the articles were improved, which is the basic point of WP:ARS. That it was kept and improved is a net plus for Wikipedia.
- Purging the article improvers for a tactical advantage at AFDs is not in the long term best interests of Wikipedia.
- Purging those who vote Keep at AFD and provide reasons (e.g., Andrew and Lightburst at the discussions; and 7&6=thirteen by improving the text and sourcing in the article itelf, and then linking at the AFD to to the improvement) does not help the AFD process produce a principled result.
- If there is a consensus ot delete or merge, so be it. reasonable minds may differ. YMMV.
- Stifling voices with a prior restraint and purge of those with whom you disagree is bad for the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposal - part 2
It may also be good etiquette for ARS members who find an AfD through the project, and go on to improve the article, to not vote in the discussion. They could just leave a comment that the article has been improved by the ARS. Improving an article normally triggers a vote 'reset' at AfD anyway and significantly improved articles are often kept. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of the complaining involves articles that were not listed at WP:ARS. When it is not listed, there is no requirement for anyone to put the discussion listiing template in at the AFD.
- Because of the sabotage ARS listings by trollish behavior of some editors, the number of listed articles has been in steady decline. Listing at WP:ARS is like ringing the dinner bell for the Great White Sharks (Chumming the water so to speak) who then pounce on an AFD they might have overlooked. And thus seek to delete the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion 3
This is brainstorming. Find articles that were deleted months or years ago (eg. Deletionwiki) and redo from scratch -- if warranted. Advantages: gives time for the old AfD to cool off. Essentially same as HEY during an AfD, but doesn't trigger ire in the middle of an AfD. Doesn't require AfD participation which has negatives for attendees when done too often. Gives unlimited time to work on draft no 30-day window. Can have 100s open and working on at once. Could optionally work offline and move into Wiki if ready. Optionally use AfC for neutral approval. In the end, achieves same result as current ARS, only change is process. Only works if new article is HEY-level improvement. -- GreenC 03:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion 4
One thing I've never understood is the interest in "rescuing" deleted or about-to-be deleted articles. Like Big John (dinosaur). Who cares about Big John? Why do people put so much effort into an article like that, yet those same people don't put effort into an article like Dinosaur or Triceratops. Many, many more readers read the Dinosaur article (100k page views) than Big John (dinosaur) (less than 2k). Who gives a damn if Big John has its own page, or is just listed on a list of fossils... why put so much effort into something of so little notability and interest while ignoring the much more important related article? It makes no sense to me. There are so many articles that aren't deleted that need improvement.
Nothing important is lost when these marginally-notable articles get deleted. Deletion doesn't erase knowledge, it just moves it to a different page. If Big John (dinosaur) were deleted, it's not like Wikipedia would not cover Big John, or some meaningful information about dinosaurs would be lost to the world. It would just be on a different page. Why fight it so hard? Editors get themselves sanctioned fighting to save a tiny hill (Big John) but totally ignore the giant mountain (Dinosaur). The thing everyone can do to help is to improve articles that people actually read, instead of being so focused on stopping or undoing deletion.
In other words, stop trying to rescue articles as if "articles" were something special. As if a web page merited rescuing. That it's a separate article, or a separate web page, is just a feature of an organization system. It's the content that matters not the web page. Instead of rescuing articles, rescue content, no matter what page it's on. Did Big John (dinosaur) get deleted? Then let's make sure Big John is covered well on the appropriate page. Don't fight tooth and nail with your colleagues over how the encyclopedia is organized (what info is on a separate page and what info is merged on the same page): instead, work to preserve the content itself rather than the organizational structure of the content. Levivich 14:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Conversely, who cares that there is an article at Big John (dinosaur), so that these deletion discussions go on for days and pages. One thing I've never understood is the interest in deleting articles when there are lots of WP:RS sources and there is interest in the readership communnity. Easily meets WP:GNG. WP:Preserve. AFD notices have links to all those souces for a reason. WP:Before should be done well, not pro forma. And article was improved substantially, showing the noncompliance. The weight of the verbiage on this "tiny hill" was posted by those favoring delete. And they put in a lot of effort to do it, and engaged in WP:Personal attacks. There was no harm in having this article. You should have given in to reason and effort.
- Take your own advice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- For me the problem with articles like Big John (dinosaur) is that they get to down into the weeds with minutiae, often to the point of being hard to read and dull. All just so some ARS member can get a win against the other side. Articles should be a summary of the topic. Not a mini dissertation on nonsense that no one outside of a paleontologists cares about, like how complete each individual bone of the dinosaur is. Otherwise, there's nothing that separates the Wikipedia from the original source and your just going through the motions of creating generic articles to score points. Like the Big John article says "The skeleton measured 3 metres high and 8 metres long" and the reference the information comes from says "Those bones form a skeleton 8m long by 3m high." At that point there's literally zero difference between the Wikipedia article and the original source, but at least there's an article "shrug." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I feel your pain. But WP:I don't like it is not a reason to delete. Too many notes.
- The honorable thing for a deletion nominator to do when an article was improved and the nomination proves to have been improvidently made, is to withdraw the nomination. See here. There is no shame in admitting a mistake was made, or that your view of the world has changed now that you are better informed. Not dig in. There is good lesson there. If that happened more, there would be reciprocity. Instead, we are treated to walls of text repeating and repeating and then echoing and reechoing the same arguments in a single discussion. Why?
- We are all on the same team. This is not a win/lose Zero sum game; wikipedia is enhanced by artile improvement, even it is done as the byproduct of an AFD. We have a symbiotic relationship. Unfortunately, there are those out there who believe that dissension deserves a WP:death penalty.
- Nobody from WP:ARS has invoked WP:ANI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Both sides in a WP:AFD ought to say their piece, and then move on.
- Both sides in a WP:AFD ought to remember that WP:AGF is essential.
- I would explain that mentioning WP:Before is not a personal attack. To be sure, a nominator may have done a search, but a failure to uncover/discover extant sources (perhaps because of ineptitude, incompetence, laziness or other distraction) is fair game. This becomes relatively self evident when the article has been vastly improved.
- Likewise, when an article and its sourcing is improved, WP:HEY can be used. Obviously, not everyone may agree on its applicability, so that can be discussed.
- We will not all agree on anything. Diversity of viewpoint and perspective is one of Wikipedia's strengths. You should revel in it, and foster it for the betterment of the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of the ANI stuff could have been avoided if specific ARS members had of admitted to their mistakes from the start. Lightburst did, but it was a little to late. Although I still commend him for doing so. Even though he went off the rails later in the ArbCom complaint, but I understand where he's coming from. In the meantime it's nonsense to say nobody from WP:ARS invoked WP:ANI. That's because no one from ARS has the social capital to. Andrew was blocked due to a 25/4 "vote." So no one would have taken an ANI complaint from him seriously if he had of filed one. That said, he did lobby for me to be blocked and for my edits to be revert several times. So it's not like you all prefer the moral high ground or whatever. Also, WP:Before is a personal attack when the nominator said they did one and you are still calling them out about it. Either way though, there's zero point in even bringing it up the first place. It makes absolutely no difference to the AfD and just makes things needlessly contentious. Even if that's not your intent. So why even bother with it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Invocation of policy does not amount to a personal attack. You may have thought you did it, but it was poorly done. I have been personally attacked for mentioning WP:Before. The subjective reaction by the draftor of a poorly considered AFD is no reason to expunge that fact. Noncompliance with WP:Before ought not to be censored.
- I would be the first to acknowledge that an AFD nominator may have tried to do a search before the nomination, and have a good faith belief in the righeousness of their cause. But whether they did if effectively or not is a straight question of fact and appliction of the policy to the evidence.
- Sorry that you are that thin-skinned, even at its mention. I was not here directing it at you. This was always context dependent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of the ANI stuff could have been avoided if specific ARS members had of admitted to their mistakes from the start. Lightburst did, but it was a little to late. Although I still commend him for doing so. Even though he went off the rails later in the ArbCom complaint, but I understand where he's coming from. In the meantime it's nonsense to say nobody from WP:ARS invoked WP:ANI. That's because no one from ARS has the social capital to. Andrew was blocked due to a 25/4 "vote." So no one would have taken an ANI complaint from him seriously if he had of filed one. That said, he did lobby for me to be blocked and for my edits to be revert several times. So it's not like you all prefer the moral high ground or whatever. Also, WP:Before is a personal attack when the nominator said they did one and you are still calling them out about it. Either way though, there's zero point in even bringing it up the first place. It makes absolutely no difference to the AfD and just makes things needlessly contentious. Even if that's not your intent. So why even bother with it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- For me the problem with articles like Big John (dinosaur) is that they get to down into the weeds with minutiae, often to the point of being hard to read and dull. All just so some ARS member can get a win against the other side. Articles should be a summary of the topic. Not a mini dissertation on nonsense that no one outside of a paleontologists cares about, like how complete each individual bone of the dinosaur is. Otherwise, there's nothing that separates the Wikipedia from the original source and your just going through the motions of creating generic articles to score points. Like the Big John article says "The skeleton measured 3 metres high and 8 metres long" and the reference the information comes from says "Those bones form a skeleton 8m long by 3m high." At that point there's literally zero difference between the Wikipedia article and the original source, but at least there's an article "shrug." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)