Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Is ARS still here?

Is ARS still active? I'd like to help keep notable topics safe while avoiding the pitfalls of previous editors, which included vote-stacking and opposition to all deletions as opposed to only those which could be prevented via editing. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've been gaslighted. There was no "vote stacking". There has consistently been article improvement. And there are those who want to limit reasoned comments (such as citations to relevant articles), comments about WP:Before. They want to silence anyone who doesn't reflect their predilections for deletion and redirection, which are deemed by them to be the only acceptable votes at AFDs. And the claim that there are automatic votes of Keep is wrong. I have always self censored, added content and sources, and not voted if I could not in good conscience vote. If I am involved, there is a real likelihood that the article will be kept. And that is because I improve articles.

That I ordinarily vote Keep and that articles are then kept should not be taken as a sign of error or prejudice. Nor a sign of vote stacking. If articles are improved as a result of an AFD, so that the nomination is now wrong, isn't that a net positive for Wikipedia?

I've taken a lot of proposed deletions on through to the main page via WP:DYK.

There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs. And euthanize WP:ARS. There have been several attempts to shut us down at WP:ANI (nine times, see above), and they have gleefully partipated. Caveat lector.

You need to separate wheat from the chaff.

Forewarned is forearmed.

It is understood that your participation may involve ostracism. Forewarned is forearmed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander. Doesn’t exactly make it seem like this ISN’T a partisan organization. Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't throw around the word "gaslighting". Gaslighting is a genuinely awful practice but it's not what's going on here - if any mistruths have been spread, it'd be (at worst) lying. This whole response seems rather defensive for (in my view) no real benefit, and if anything pushes potential members away. There's no evil deletionist conspiracy/cabal. Remagoxer ^(talk) 13:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ignore 13 Plutonical, the complaints against certain ARS members were generally valid and they’re just trying to drag you into the Wikimedia culture wars and inflate their persecution complex. If you’d like to participate then great, ARS needs more users who are willing to improve neglected articles and not storm into AfD ranting about the Deletionist cabal destroying Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:Plutonical Ignore Dronebogus whose hosility is well demonstrated and constant. His remarks were expected. He is a wolf in sheep's clothes. While he claims to be here to help WP:ARS, his actions say otherwise. His declaration of ARS's demise are premature.
  

To be sure, I know that the members of the Inquisition said they were there only to help Jean d'Arc and save her immortal soul.

Make up your own mind and use your common sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Not helping your case. I figure it’s onto Godwinning next. Your paranoid hostility, combined with the fact that you can only see ARS as a way to fight rival wiki factions and anyone else who doesn’t agree with your hardline inclusionism, is going to do more to destroy it than I ever could. Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Figure it out. Hostility and hollow threats. Deliberate WP:Disruption of the project. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • You’re the disruptive one and those “threats” about taking you to ANI over it aren’t hollow as you’re going to see in a moment. Dronebogus (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IF ARS is 'ever' re-nominated for deletion, would someone 'please' ping me? PS - This request removes any accusations of WP:CANVASS, against the editor who does ping me. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW - Is there an anti-ARS project? If so, then ping me about that one too, if it's nominated for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Time to ask for sanctions. I have never gone to ANI, except to respond. WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay so quite clearly, we've got a lot of well-intentioned users on this page who have gotten involved in a fucking spaghetti pile of hostility over deleted pages. I know Dronebogus usually makes good nominations even if he is a bit overzealous in certain cases, and I get that ARS is pretty okay and well-intentioned too even if there is controversy surrounding it. Nobody here is necessarily right, or wrong, but I think I'll just stay out of this general place until it stops being a warzone. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 18:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sometimes we have calm, sometimes the mentioned "warzone" is relentless for awhile. Sometimes just one determined user is bothering us for awhile before giving up. Its been like that since I first joined many years ago. You can just ignore everyone and focus on looking at articles on the list and seeing if you can make improvements. Seed-counting machine is a great example of an article being rescued. It went from this [1] to what it is now thanks to the ARS. Dream Focus 18:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(Plutonical) I didn't know ARS existed, until last month :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidence

Note that no one has ever found any evidence of canvasing. You can see on the list how many items, even those posted by regular members, get no one to the AFD at all. You can check back for years and see this. Note that most of the AFDs the regular members participate in, do not get listed on the Rescue list, everyone has their own interest and is all over the place. Also note that those who complain the most about the ARS have argued with their members AFDs, upset they disagree with them. At a recent ANI some stated problems with two specific members who were sanctioned. Nothing to do with the rest of us or anyone who wishes to participate. Please don't make accusations without linking to actual evidence. Dream Focus 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just looking over the list on the front page. Out of 18 nominations 13 of them were kept. Also, out of the 18 all of them had participation by at least one ARS Member and all except for two had participation by multiple members. So it's a gross miss characterization of the facts to say many of the AfDs posted here don't get anyone from ARS participating in them. Same with asserting that posting an article at ARS isn't an effective way to get it kept. A 73% keep rate where 90% of them are voted on by multiple ARS members is quite effective. Especially considering that 2 of the main members where blocked during some of that time and the others were under increased scrutiny. Probably the numbers would be even higher under normal circumstances. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

In many cases the articles were significantly improved, from where they were when nominated. Closers play a big role here, they look at these things. If the article was significantly improved late in process ,the early Delete votes will carry less weight. When you look at those 18 look at article changes, which can be more impactful then votes. It's a major reason ARS is so effective. -- GreenC 03:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I was thinking of past times when people counted them. This time the odds are mostly kept. But there have been times when the results weren't so good. Lightburst completely rewrote Bilingual pun [2]. Arabeyes had a lot of edits done on it [3] after it was tagged for rescue. Seed-counting machine was taken from a stub to a full article with a lot of editing of four regular members: Dream Focus, Andrew Davidson, Lightburst, and 7&6=thirteen [4]. Many other examples out there. We don't just vote in AFDs, we search for references, and work on articles. Find things like that in years of examples. A stub article was going to be deleted with S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes, then the ARS stepped in and turned it into a full article [5] which later made the front page of Wikipedia in the Did You Know section. Of course 7&6=thirteen has done significant contributions on hundreds of articles that became Did You Know's. [6] Dream Focus 03:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm more then willing to have the "ARS improves articles" conversations, but that's not with this discussion is about and making about that instead of DF's original assertion that "even those posted by regular members, get no one to the AFD at all" is just moving the bar to deflect from him being wrong. Every time an ARS member says something about them not canvasing, how ARS members don't all participate in AfDs togethers, or that most things posted here don't get any response from ARS members and it turns out to be wrong they always pivot to "well, we improve articles though." As if that has anything to do with it. Just admit you were wrong and stop trying to deflect things. Outside of that, if you want to have a conversation about how much ARS does or doesn't improve articles cool, I'm sure you do sometimes, but that's not what this discussion is about. Maybe people come along and vote keep after articles are improved, but DF's statement that "even those posted by regular members, get no one to the AFD at all" is still factually incorrect based on the evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn't go through all the evidence, just looked at a small number of recent cases. There have been times when most things posted were ignored entirely. I remember it since I've been here for many years now. You'd have to dig through the archives though to see it. Dream Focus 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, the stats you gave are misleading because they don't take into account article improvements that altered the outcome of the AfD. And it is a very small sample size. When these significant problems with the statistics were pointed out, rather than adjusting, you responded in a personal manner "Just admit you were wrong and stop trying to deflect". -- GreenC 16:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

18 cases isn't really a small number. Otherwise how far back should someone have to go? 2 years? 5 years? 10? I've looked through the archive at random articles myself and weren't any different. Even if they were though, there's a point where if you have to go extremely far back to be right that it doesn't prove anything. Since they are current accusations. People are saying ARS is a canvasing platform right now. Not 10 years ago. As far as me responding in a personal manor, Dream Focus made the claims. They aren't part of ARS policy or anything. So there's no way for me to respond to them without framing it as him being wrong.

If you want my honest opinion about this, I don't think the canvasing thing is the main issue here and most Wikiproject's do it to some degree anyway, but as a Wikiproject you should have a more coherent and consolatory explanation when people comment about things hen accusing them of being bomb throwers who are trying to destroy ARS or whatever. I can almost guarantee that if I went to any other Wikiproject and said it seemed like they were canvasing that they would have an exact answer why they aren't. Or they would just tell me to stop casting asperations and go back to their business. You know your going to be scrutinized though. Look at this like an organizations that is being questioned by the IRS for cooking the books. It doesn't matter if you did it or not. The best way to deal with it is to be friendly, let them look at what they want, but don't volunteer information, and make sure you have a default answer as an organization for everything figured out ahead of time. So they don't catch one of your more unstable employees in a trap. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there an Article Deletion Squadron? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There used to be, ten years ago. They went around to every single article of a type they didn't like, nominating dozens of them at once sometimes, calling everything Wikipedia:Fancruft. If they failed to delete something, the same people then nominated it again later on, when less people would notice. Some even stated they checked page views for an article before they nominated it, so they had a higher chance of success deleting it. And some got enough support on various wikiprojects, made certain enough people would show up to vote delete, before nominating something for deletion. If you had a bot to search for an article that got sent to AFD ten times or more, you'd be surprised how common that was. If you could search for articles nominated for deletion by the same editor at least three times in a single year, you'd probably be able to find them. But those days are gone, along with much of Wikipedia. Most editors who care about such articles have moved on to Wikia/Fandom, which was created by the founder of Wikipedia, only with ads so he could make some money. Wikipedia has a feature to export articles you can then easily import over there to save them from deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export Dream Focus 23:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Did it just atrophy from inactivity, or was it ended by some sort of community action? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Some were blocked for sockpuppets, but kept coming back again to torment those they didn't like for some reason, terrorizing them outside of Wikipedia at times even. Some were blocked for other reasons, but came back with new accounts and played innocent whenever someone mentioned how well they seemed to know Wikipedia for a new user, and how odd it was they edited the same articles as the guy who just got blocked the same day their account was created. Some just kept repeating the same lies relentlessly until people accepted them as truth. And some edit warred the notability guidelines until they got what they wanted, and all hope to save most of the fictional articles on Wikipedia was lost. And a few saw article they cared about being destroyed, and finally learned the error of their ways, and turned away from their path of destruction. Dream Focus 23:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Was it an actual Wikiproject though or just some random people who displayed similar behaviors? Because as far as I know there has never been a "Wikiproject Deletion Squad", except as a joke, and @GoodDay:'s question wasn't "is there some loosely connected people who vote delete in a questionable way." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No official Wikiproject. See this Wikipedia:List_of_cabals ;) Dream Focus 08:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't think so. Wikipedia:List_of_cabals sounds like a good way to justify casting asperations about random people having a shared agenda, but totally worthless outside of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice the ;) that indicates a winking smiling face. Also notice that the article linked to has a banner at the top saying its humorous. Dream Focus 11:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Did they have a page in WP: space where they could post about the articles they wanted to delete? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Various talk pages were used. Some people would talk with others for awhile, make sure enough people around to agree with them and backup whatever they did, before taking an action they knew others would be against. Dream Focus 17:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, so as I understand it, it wasn't a "deletion squad" in the sense of a formally-recognized organization or WikiProject, but rather, a group of obnoxious users who canvassed one another in user-talk space (and maybe off-site), and who have been referred to facetiously as a "cabal". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To summarise this exchange:
GoodDay: Is there an Article Deletion Squadron?
Dream Focus: There used to be, ten years ago.
Adamant1: Was it an actual Wikiproject though or just some random people who displayed similar behaviors?... and GoodDay's question wasn't "is there some loosely connected people who vote delete in a questionable way"
Dream Focus: No official Wikiproject.
So here is an example of ARS's regular tactic of throwing enough deceptive mud in the water, attempting to stonewall the proposal into a "no consensus" outcome. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There was no "proposal" here. A "no consensus outcome" is thus not possible. Dream Focus 22:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Dream Focus: As I said, it is an example of the ARS tactic, I never said that there is a proposal here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no tactic. I write whatever pops in my head, there is no planning, no tactic at all. Dream Focus 23:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Stonewalling/distracting to achieve "no consensus" is common practice amongst ARS members, it seems unlikely that this is a coincidence. Maybe it has become a subconscious learned behavior, but either way the outcome is the same. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If I looked at things correctly then in the second page of the archives there are 23 articles that were closed as no consensus but listed here as keep outcomes. Whereas, only one article that was closed as no consensus was actually listed that way. Also, in most of them the closer was pretty clear that the outcome wasn't a straight keep. If ARS members were just randomly writing stuff of the top of their heads or going by what the closers said, then there wouldn't be a ratio of 22 to 1 in favor of saying articles closed as keep are no consensus. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That is a clear indication of ARS's attitude towards "no concensus" outcomes. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You should read the lengthy prior discussions on why the ARS page says Keep vs. No consensus. I don't think anyone except one person who is no longer that active really cared that much one way or another - for most of ARS history it recorded as No Consensus. Then when that one person fought over it for so long the trend turned to saying Keep. There are pro and con arguments, turns out to be complicated. There are lots of people who come and go on ARS leaving their influence, just like any forum on Wikipedia. It's certainly not a cabal conspiracy theory finding "evidence" of secret "tactics" to disrupt AfD with stonewalling, that's a pretty big leap of bad faith. GreenC 15:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: That would be a reasonable explanation if multiple people weren't repeatedly attacked in the meantime for not accepting outcomes because they re-listed articles that were closed as no consensus. I was even attacked by 13 myself a few weeks ago just for suggesting that we should re-list the more contentious AfDs that closed as no consensuses. So it's obviously false that just one person who isn't active anymore was the only one who really cared about it. Also, what other reasons would there be for ARS members attacking people over it except stonewalling the finding of a better consensus that might not be "keep by technicality"? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment So just an update to my prior post about "canvasing evidence." I created a spread sheet with the last 42 listed articles and a few things are apparent from it.

1. Block voting occurs in most cases. Usually in blocks of 3. Only 8 out of the 42 articles listed had more then three ARS members participate, but three is still enough to be block voting IMO.

2. DreamFocus has voted keep in about 38 out of the 42 AfDs. The only ones he didn't vote in where not nominated by any of the top 4 ARS members. With thr except of a few that were clearly snow deletes before being listed. So his whole thing that "those articles posted by regular members, get no one to the AFD at all" is clearly false since he's participated in 99% (if not all) of the AfDs posted by other regular members.

3. A lot of the time Nemesis and GreenC act as the third or forth vote. They have only voted in the same AFD once and that was in the ARS Public School's third AfD nomination. Take that as you will, but to me it shows a clear pattern of voting that refutes the claim that ARS members (or users extremely adjacent to the poject) aren't voting in any organized way.

4. Most of the time block voting only doesn't happen when someone other then the top 4 ARS members lists the article. Which usually results in no participation by anyone. This clearly refutes the idea that ARS members have their own interests and are all over the place.

5. Most of the time the person who lists the article doesn't participate in the AFD. Especially when it's Andrew. To me this shows a concerted effort to make it seem as though the lister is an uninvolved neutral third party.

I'm really interested in what the counter to those data points is. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How about looking at the previous list of things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list/Archive_26 7&6=thirteen post something but only he participates in that AFD, Chasing the dragon in popular culture. The next one on the list was posted by him and many went and said keep because its a valid article. BOZ post two items, and I communicate with him on one of those there, but no regular ARS members go to either article to vote. Mztourist post a request for help to a Nazi sex doll hoax. I go there and find references after searching, but state there isn't enough coverage for an article, so don't vote. I post a request for List of celebrated domes but no one shows up there but me, and it gets deleted. I post a question about Nations at beauty pageants but no one goes there to vote. Boz post three more things that don't bring any votes on over to those places. You'd have to look at more than just the most recent things to get a proper view of things. No one is block voting. Dream Focus 11:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I included all the AfD listings from the 26th page of the archive in my analysis. I'm not really sure what your point about 7&6=thirteen is and there there's plenty of articles listed on that page where multiple ARS members voted. Including him. That the article below Chasing the dragon in popular culture was a "valid keep" doesn't really have any bearing on if there was block voting in the AfD or not. As far as BOZ's items goes, if I remember correctly they listed 5 articles and no one voted on any of them. All that shows is that there's a clear preference for only voting on articles that are posted by either you, 7&6=thirteen, or Andrew. Which just proves there's block voting/canvasing going on because people aren't voting on articles that are listed, but articles that are listed by specific ARS members. Sure there's a few exceptions, but so what? It's not like ARS members aren't willing to make sweeping accusations about people without any evidence what-so-ever. At least in this case there is some. Personally, I think something happening 99% of the time is enough evidence to say ARS members aren't just "having their own interests and being all over the place." --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense here. Sometimes people vote on things, sometimes not, doesn't matter who posted them. That list shows also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/B._A._Baracus which Andrew listed and only he went there and said keep, along with one random editor. We don't just show up and vote when one of us post something or that would've happened in multiple places on that list that it did not. If you could write a bot to list who showed up at each AFD ever listed on the ARS, and who posted a request on the list, it'd prove this is not a real problem. Dream Focus 12:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What exactly did I say that doesn't make sense? As far as your bot comment, it's completely ridiculous for a number of reasons (that I'm not going into because they should be really obvious) to make the standard of evidence the voting patterns in every AfD that's ever been posted at ARS. That wasn't the standard of evidence you wanted when you posted this either. You seem to have no way to refute what I said on it's merits though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, out of the last twenty three AfDs you participated in that were kept you only edited eight of them. Out of those eight articles you edited four one time, two twice, and only two four times. So, you only edited two article out of twenty three in any meaningful way. Which hardly supports your claim that ARS members are improving articles. At least you don't seem to be in those cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone got there before me and did everything they could. I do look for and often find reliable sources giving coverage to things. And its not how many times you edit an article, but the total content added. Out of the last 23 AFD total, or the last 23 AFD that were also tagged for Rescue? And did I find reliable sources giving significant coverage and post that in the deletion discussion? Finding proof of notability is the main thing. Dream Focus 16:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles are improved. Sometimes I vote. Sometimes I don't. We are all volunteers here; we choose when and what to edit, and we do it using available sources. ARS's worth should not be measured in the way User:Adamant1y claims. And the articles I voted on, when I said the article was improved, and mentioned WP:HEY (which I have been castigated for) were in fact improved. Indeed, I continue to be stalked and my edits undone by some of the naysayers. And that is true of others amongst those hung out to dry at ANI. See here. He had never edited that article before, but when I mentioned it on my user page, he was there in spades.

Where did I say anything about ARSs worth in any of that? Even if your edits were being stalked and reverted they would still show up as edits in the articles history and they just aren't. At least not from what I've been able to find. In the meantime, I'm not making any other claims then what the evidence shows. You can refute that it's not the case by providing counter evidence, but the fact that you keep going on side tangents just shows you don't have any. Otherwise, look through the articles that have posted at ARS and provide of evidence of 23 consecutive articles out of them that you edited more then once. I'm more willing to be proven wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You choose to overlook the many articles I improve in which I did not vote. Your negativity and hostility is neither constructive nor helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Dream Focus asked for evidence and I provided it, based on the facts. There's nothing hostile about that and it's not on me that those facts didn't align with the assertions that he was making. If they had of matched how he characterized things I'd have zero problem saying so. In the meantime, what isn't productive is making false claims and obfuscating things in every conversations. Obviously conflicts can't and won't be resolved if one side chronically misportrays things or treats evidence that doesn't 100% align with their opinions as cherry picking hostility. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Selective polling is not meaningful. Fallacy of composition. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." Particularly when they are cherry picked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say I was selective or cherry picked? I picked the first two pages of articles that were listed because they relate to the claims people are currently making about ARS and it's members. It would be ridiculous to pick samples from back when people who aren't involved in the current disputes weren't members of ARS. Especially from if the samples are from 12 years ago. Why would I choose samples from 12 years ago to show Lightburst is block voting when he wasn't a member of ARS or even an editor at that point? In the meantime, 2 pages of articles is a perfectly fine representative sampling of the overall behavior in the last year. Nothing more, nothing less, but if something happens 40 consecutive times over a six month period it's not that much of a stretch to say it's a pattern that has occurred in other instances. Outside of that, if statistics are lies then how would you prefer I provide the evidence of canvasing/block voting that Dream Focus asked for? Or was I just not suppose to? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, your thesis was that ARS as a group is causing unfair outcomes due to vote stacking. The response is "no", improvements are made to articles that contribute towards the community voting Keep; and ARS are familiar with the rules and apply them well during voting. Your statistics don't address any of that, you picked one person out; don't say what the outcomes of the various AfDs were; what the percentage of ARS voting was; what contributions others ARS members made towards voting and improvements; what the majority of non-ARS members thought; etc.. -- GreenC 04:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: The response to the evidence of vote stacking can be no, but that's pretty meaningless in and of itself. If ARS is familiar with the rules and apply them well during voting then there should be evidence of that and there isn't. At least not from what I could find. No one from ARS has presented any either. Which is why every response by an ARS member comes down to extremely vague statements about how ARS doesn't vote stack and "improves things." Instead of providing actually meaningful evidence to that effect. Like I told Dream Focus though, if he can show 20 articles that he consecutively edited 4 or more times as a counter balance to the 20 I've shown that he didn't, then I'm more then willing to consider that and change my opinion that he doesn't improve articles. It's on him or other ARS members to disprove my thesis though.

As far as your claim that I didn't say what contributions others ARS members made towards voting, I included the top 6 contributors. Including the 4 that most of the complaints are being made about. Which should be more then enough. Why would I include the edits of ARS members who just added their names to the members list but never contributed anything meaningful to the project? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A proper way is show all the data not just cherry one person (Dream) and one bit of data (edits). Once you have all then data then you can start asking questions and getting some answers on a statistical basis. If you exclude data then it's invalid. The arbitrary questions your asking ("20 articles that he consecutively edited 4 or more times") is transparently designed to cause the person to fail. You are also ignoring sources added/found within the AfD itself which equally influence voting outcomes. -- GreenC 14:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. It's not cherry picking to look at the edits of the person who's making the claim that they improve articles. Why would I look at say the edits of AStanhope or Avanu when they aren't the ones claiming they improve articles? Also, I didn't "ignore" influencing voting outcomes. That's not what the discussion is about. If you want to start a new discussion about "influencing voting outcomes" your free to. Maybe I'll look into that also, but it's a ridiculous to act like I'm intentionally ignoring something no one is discussing or that me not including that in the equation somehow magically invalidates my points. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on your comments I don't think it's even possible to agree on what this discussion is about. -- GreenC 03:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been basing my side of it on Dream Focus' original comment "Please don't make accusations without actual evidence." There's no way to agree what this is about, the original premise or otherwise, when people keep veering the discussion off into multiple side talking points that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the discussion, that he wanted evidence for the accusations being made. Which I've done and you and Dream Focus then decided to dismiss/deflect from because it doesn't fit with your opinions. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You initiated with evidence that I and others believe is flawed as explained above. I countered with a way to fairly go about it, and your response was "whatever", "not what discussion is about" etc.. then you assume bad faith that it is "deflecting". - GreenC 05:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really care if you think it's flawed. Dream Focus asked for evidence of the accusations being made and no one is making accusations about other people besides the six that I came up with evidence about. There's zero reason I'd provide evidence about anyone elses behavior. It's extremely hard to assume good faith when someone changes the subject multiple times and keeps insisting that I provide evidence of users edits that no one have said anything about or has an issue with. 100% doing so is deflecting. If I said Dream Focused called me a name, he asked for evidence which I provided, and then you were like "Your cherry picking because you didn't show evidence of Anne Delong calling you a name and anyway Dream Focus improves articles so your evidence of him name calling isn't valid", I don't what else to call that except for deflecting. Maybe you have a better word for it though? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There is actually a user named that and since they are a bluegrass musician I'm sure they are a laid back kind of person who would never call anyone names. You need to stop spreading such lies about them. ;)

Anyway, you listed a bias sampling of evidence, I pointed out what was wrong with that, and suggested how you could do it properly, you refused to accept it. This is just one long drawn out pointless argument. Should you ever find a bot master with the skills to gather all the information properly, and present it in a fair manner, you would see there no evidence of any canvassing going on. Dream Focus 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Your quote: "Which hardly supports your claim that ARS members are improving articles". ARS improves articles, is the claim, as was initially recognized by you. You then later changed the focus to only DreamFocus improving articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle even said "thank you for your analysis of the 42 articles [by DreamFocus]. It aligns with my experiences of ARS". Clearly others are taking an analysis of DreamFocus to be an analysis of ARS. The claim is and always has been ARS improves articles. And I will add here, they also add sources within the AfD which is very similar to improvements, the same thing researching and finding sources. And as was discussed further up this mega thread, the whole reason that improving articles is important is it influences the outcome of the AfD, and the reason that is important was to counter your initial contention that all ARS does it vote stack to force outcomes. -- GreenC 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No the original claim, made by Dream Focus, was that ARS isn't block voting/canvasing. Which is what he wanted evidence for. My response to that was purely about AfD voting states. Which you then you responded with "In many cases the articles were significantly improved." Neither I or Dream Focus had said anything about articles being improved or not before you brought it up to deflect from what I said about voting statistics. Him wanting evidence of block voting/canvasing (which I provided) had nothing to do with if articles are significantly improved or not. Like I've said already, improving articles might be important on its own, but it's not an excuse to canvas. Anymore then something like socking would be fine as long as the person who did it was using the sock to "improve articles." In the meantime, I never said that "all" ARS does is vote stack, but again, everything ARS does is not what the accusations being made where about and aren't what Dream Focused asked for evidence of. It's really ridiculous that your either unable or unwilling to separate the specific examples that he asked for evidence of from the overall behavior of ARS. If you don't think this should be about canvasing or vote stacking, then that's on him for originally just posting specifically about those things. In the meantime I can guarantee that if the evidence I gathered proved both of you right that neither one of you would have a problem with it. No one would be calling it cherry picking insults or whatever if it showed there was no vote stacking and that Dream Focus had improved the articles he was voting on. You all would probably be waving it around in 13's ANI complaint instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, thank you for your analysis of the 42 articles. It aligns with my experiences of ARS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

With all the commotion (rightly or wrongly) over ARS these last few weeks. It's a wonder that nobody has started up (or re-started) an Article Deletion Squadron, to counter ARS. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The way to avoid these kinds of problems is to not have non-neutral, partisan Wikiprojects Like ARS in the first place. In the meantime just replicating what they do but on the other side of the voting spectrum isn't going to resolve anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There have been various people at different times over the years, that followed us to every single AFD just to accuse us of nonsense and vote delete. Dream Focus 02:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As another issue with ARS, this came up at BLP/N but the article John Trevena (lawyer) had several BLP-related problems. It was nominated for AFD but at least 3 ARS members flatly voted keep because of coverage related to allegations about the lawyer -- but any long-standing Wikipedian (including these ARS members) should know that BLP (including BLPCRIME) trumps most other policies. I could understand an earnest attempt to find additional sources that do not have issues with BLP, but that wasn't done, simply hand-waving that there's sources, so the article must be kept. I could understand if one of the ARS members said this while others that participated may have different thoughts but here, it was clearly a group mentality and ignorant of BLP standards. While calling ARS a voting bloc in AFD is probably not accurate, the issue of !voting keep at all costs, ignoring policy, is a long-standing problem. --Masem (t) 15:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not at all clear BLPCRIME applies in this case, see article talk page discussions. -- GreenC 16:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You brought this up elsewhere and I stated that that AFD showed only the nominator said delete, the other 7 people that showed up said Keep, and gave a valid reason to do so, only three of them ARS members, one of which created the article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Trevena_(lawyer) When you mention something kindly link to it so people can see what happened and decide for themselves. Dream Focus 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any particular opinion about that AfD, but I have seen multiple examples before where ARS members voted keep based on news articles related to allegations. Even in cases where the allegations were being made toward someone only slightly related to the subject. For instance a teacher of a school being accused of sexually inappropriate behavior with a students. It should be obvious that such articles don't make the school the person works for notable and aren't acceptable more broadly either, but ARS members use the articles anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what I mean, with the Trevena article just an example. When I've seen ARS involved on a BLP/BIO article, they tend to want to argue keep based on a plethera of sources but none that discuss the biographical person in any depth. That gets us, for example, pushing articles about a BLP/BIO that may have been convicted of crimes but where those were not covered in anything but local police blotter-type coverage. Just finding sources is not sufficient for AFD, you need to show that they are in-depth and is content appropriate per BLP as well as WP:NOT. ARS has done this in the past, but I would say their more positive outcomes are far outweighed by resting their argument on source volume without considering source weight. --Masem (t) 05:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the time there isn't even a conviction, just an arrest or allegation that never led to anything. But they still act like a local news outlet having a small blurb about an allegation that never went anywhere proves notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

So what? Reasonable minds can differ in that assessment. This was hashed out at the AFD. Apparently the AFD was not closed to your liking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In no way is it reasonable to post clearly bad references and then expect people who rather follow the guidelines instead to just "hash it out", like the purpose of the AfD process is to cater to your personal preferences or be a debate platform. It should go without saying that repeatedly posting clearly invalid references and then forcing other people to refute them is disruptive to the process. In the meantime I could really care less how the AfDs were closed, what I care about is the utter disregard for the guidelines and time of other editors it shows. We shouldn't have to pull teeth in every AfD ARS members are involved in just because their go to tactic is ignoring the notability guidelines and otherwise obfuscating the process. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For goodness sake, if anyone believes that the ARS is a canvassing machine? Then by all means nominate it for deletion, at the appropriate Village Pump. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We'll, meet again.....?

Regrettable to see that @Lightburst: has retired. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Advisory note at AFDs

I happened to notice this at a pending AFD:

Not a vote If you came here because of the ARS listing, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC) at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I've never observed other projects being singled out for such recognition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• For once I agree with you, its completely unnecessary. You guys always make a point of noting when articles are listed here and that big notice is something of a red letter. AFD regulars know what is going on and whether you see this as canvassing of helpful, ymmv, its going to raise the temperature in discussions and that isn’t helpful. In fact, I think I will remove it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is kind of an advertisement.

I think it is new. At least it is new to me.

Having been a participant in a few AFDs, it only states what we all know. And I've seen my share of closures that involved arithmetically challenged closers who just do a super vote, irrespective of the numbers and the merits. Stuff happens.

A heads up seemed in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Good advice

Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave. AFD discussions are way too prolonged, and that leads to extraneous and hostile interactions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion report

User:JPxG What we lost, what we gained" Report from the Signpost 29 November 2021 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:OFD is amazing, so is that report, JPxG did great work. The timing of the OFD release coincided with the largest AfD in Wikipedia history. -- GreenC 20:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion misnamed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, what a misleading name for a full purge of hundreds of other-topic index pages. Is this type of mass deletion of scores of unrelated and perfectly good and maintained articles allowed under such a name, and is this a record-setting deletion request? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about AFDs

See here.
I am not a party there. But it is worth remembering that there have been ten (10!) attempts to delete this project and this page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

AfD needs more formal checks and balances. The system is too anarchic, eating itself in an attempt to self-regulate. A perpetual Reign of Terror ("degenerated into the settlement of personal grievances"). --GreenC 19:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'm OK with discussions that degenerate into the settlement of personal grievances, just so long as they do get settled. That's forward progress at least, even if someone loses their head now and then. EEng 20:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Some users are not actually trying to settle, they are in it for the HOUNDing, to cause others grievance, whenever an opportunity to snipe is available. Long term for years. (not you). -- GreenC 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I keep it subtle. EEng 16:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing Arbitration about AFDs is ongoing. There is a short time to add parties. And to add your evidence and two cents to the discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

And the beat goes on

Discussion here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You should mention what the discussion is about. The ARS was mentioned in it at places. Dream Focus 23:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It was neutrally stated. Anything said would be too much.

This determination was knowingly made. Any elucidation would have been subject to speculation, characterization, mischaracterization and recrimination.

These edits are an open book.

And the Quislings will be quick, misinformed and misguided. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody was called a "Nazi" even if they share only pretended shared interest in this project. Metaphors are like that. Misinterpretation will happen; and accusations will be made. I've never suggested they be banned from participating here. It is an open forum, and we are all presumably equal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nazi references and an "echo chamber of ghouls voting delete"... stay classy, ARS :)

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody was called a Quisling. All seems yellow to the jaundiced eye. And folks with divided loyalties and purposes have a vulnerability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

I received this notice, which apparently is an omnibus inquiry into AFDs:

... The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that ARS is inherently involved. But the arbitration's scope and intent is something I don't understand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Open meetings and proceedings with notice to persons potentially effected by this. This seems to by nominally about conduct at AFDs. WP:ARS participants are within the cross hairs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not WP:Canvassing. "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Shout it to the world, and let all the interested editors (on all sides) have input and an opportunity to be heard. It is not about me, but it is about the process and improving the encyclopedia. There are no "votes" involved; the arbitrators are not running for office. Presumably they will fulfill the duties of their office and work based upon the record as fully developed as it may become. Working in the shadows does not inspire confidence in the process or the result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not enough that justice is done. It must be seen to be done. As Chief Justice Hewart wrote:

It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. — Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Useful reading User:Guerillero/Guide to Arbitration, and Wikipedia:There is no justice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My posting here was reverted twice, citing that this was "canvassing." There are those who now republish the claim and insist that putting light on this here is canvassing. I disagree. I am not acquiescing in that 'analysis.' I anticipate it will be brought up later (can't stop that), but I need to make my position clear now. Failure to deny is often claimed to be an admission. Repetition of contentions lends unwarranted credence. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron

FYI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

At the time it was even discussed in Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2012-03-19#Discussion_report. -- GreenC 18:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A fitting award

Some might think someone deserves WP:DTQ. An award for the race from the bottom. I'd never heard of it; but it has uses.
I personally have not earned those, but I took many from AFD to being on the front page as a WP:DYK.
Such awards are clearly among the goals of WP:ARS members. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominate yourself for what you've done. I agree it should be known--and sought after--more widely than it is. There might even ought to be a DTQ triple crown at some point... Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox listing 28 articles that went from AFD to DYK and the main page. This has now been put into evidence at the pending arbitration. Also details how much work is involved in turning these articles around. This is the primary purpose of WP:ARS, and IMO negates the accusation that I am involved in "canvassing." I am involved in article improvement. With one exception, these all wound up as Keeps 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thought for the Day

Sealioning * Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Also Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing is not helpful to a volunteer-built encyclopedia. No one has been mentioned by name. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If the shoe fits ... The edit history might be submitted as evidence. See WP:Edit warring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

As evidence of what, trying to uphold WP:5P4?? It is sad to see that you insist on posting this wP:BATTLEGROUND rubbish not just on your user page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is sad that you continue your Sealioning. But after years of inflicting it on others, why would you change? I already deem you irrelevant and objectionable. I will follow what I advised; it all seems apt. Disengage. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My thought this day is that, MrsSnoozyTurtle, you need to cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thought for the day 7/21/2022

Edgelord The internet is full of new concepts and abuses. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

Of possible interest to WP:ARS

... , in the open Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Idea that may be of interest to this project

I have an idea for a new process. This was inspired in part by the current arbcom case. I welcome any feedback. See this very rough beginning. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• This proposal is likely to be a significant burden on editors who want to keep an article, and give an easy second chance to those who want to delete. A common argument at AFD is that an article should be kept because it is notable and any issues with the article could be resolved through normal editing. Under this proposal it is likely that a lot of articles such as this would be sent through this new process, when today they would just be kept. If after 30 days nobody has been able to fix the issues and it is re-nominated for deletion, an article that would be kept today would be deleted, because the nominator would argue that it could be fixed but hasn’t been and therefore should be deleted. Some editors will also not be happy that an article has be sent through this new process instead of being deleted, and will just re-nominate regardless of any improvement. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a very good point and a fair concern, its the same issue as sending content to draft space.★Trekker (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like an unnecessary addition to the already sprawling network of flawed article repair solutions. In general a passable article can easily be improved through normal edits, while a premature article can be sent to draftspace and a bad article can be WP:TNT’d and recreated later by someone who actually gives a crap about quality. Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sounds interesting. This recent AfD->DRAFT pipeline flow is burdening the draft process which was not designed with AfD in mind, it was really meant as a solution for new pages as a holding tank for review before going live. I would rather see a process that is specific to the concerns of AfD and that process flow. -- GreenC 03:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I believe that the arbitration case is concluded, and that I have been topic banned in perpetuity (no time specified) from "deletion discussions broadly construed." I do not know if that includes participation here; until they tell me otherwise, I will be absent from further participation. It has been a privilege working with y'all. Ciao. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  It says 12 months I think then appealed. Likewise working with you in fact I would say it was much more enjoyable collaborating to improve articles, actual research and writing. We've done a lot over the years - toy store, Democracy meme, list goes on - I don't see why you can't continue to improve articles. Drop me a line anytime if you see something to work on (that isn't deletion!). -- GreenC 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  FYI yes, it includes any kind of ARS participation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Noticeboard Incident

Hi, I would like to inform this group that I have begun an WP:ANI for WP:CANVASsing by this project, to see what administrators and outside opinions think. The discussion can be found here. Ciao. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Congrats to User:Lightburst

Congrats to Lightburst for identifying so many articles that can be improved. The run of "keep" outcomes at AFD indicates you're identifying articles in need of improvement and ones that can be improved, very well. Keep up the good work. CT55555(talk) 20:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

CT55555 Thanks, for the kind words! Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Naming of closing admins in summary boxes

Hello Lightburst. Could you please explain the purpose of naming the closing admin in the summary box? Is there a policy or guideline that supports doing this? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle This is an article improvement group. So far I have only watched you follow the group to do drive-by voting and make accusatory remarks. You can't just follow un-collegially it is against policy. WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. You have been told as much on your talk page several times by other editors also, 1, 2. I can chase down diffs of you following and needling 7&6 too, but it is unproductive. If you never actually participate in the rescue of an article I have to question why you are taking over the moderation of the group. I saw you hang a few erroneous tags a while back, but that is not rescue activity. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If we post what they said as their closing statements, we need to sign their names to it. Dream Focus 16:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that if quoting someone, it's fair and logical to say who we are quoting. CT55555(talk) 16:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Lightburst, I will ignore your incorrect and irrelevant claims. Could you please respond to the two questions above? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Because we've always done it that way it's established consensus by weight of tradition. The question is why you are suddenly butting heads with a bunch of people trying to change this tradition, what was the trigger that started all this? The fact is when you quote someone you also include who you are quoting is common sense and I think if you were to take this Village Pump (please don't just a theoretical example) and asked 100 random people, most would say quoting a user should include who you are quoting, otherwise it's not a complete quote and then you wonder, why are they not including the name of the quoted user. Plus, sometimes someone might read a close and strongly agree/disagree and they want to know who the closer was, sure they could open the AfD and see it there, but why make them do that when we can just cite who they are as part of the quote. -- GreenC 15:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)