Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.59.168.167 (talk) at 08:33, 28 August 2022 (→‎GEOFF YOUNG). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron.
If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.
WikiProject iconArticle Rescue Squadron
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

And the beat goes on

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

You should mention what the discussion is about. The ARS was mentioned in it at places. Dream Focus 23:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nazi references and an "echo chamber of ghouls voting delete"... stay classy, ARS :)
Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nobody was called a Quisling. All seems yellow to the jaundiced eye.[1] And folks with divided loyalties and purposes have a vulnerability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[2][3]

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Useful reading User:Guerillero/Guide to Arbitration, and Wikipedia:There is no justice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "“All seems infected that the infected spy, As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.” — Alexander Pope
  2. ^ Bosland, Jason; Gill, Jonathan (2014). "The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons". Melbourne University Law Review. 38 (2): 482.
  3. ^ Datar, Arvind (17 April 2020). "Columns: The origins of "Justice must be seen to be done"". Bar and Bench. Few sentences have been quoted more often than the aphorism: "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done". This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron

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

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)[reply]

Thought for the Day

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

GEOFF YOUNG

 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoff_Young  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:487F:60E2:0:59:4D56:8001 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is like deletion page Don't delete again

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&oldid=1107124557"