User:7&6=thirteen/sandbox

Who am I. I have been editing Wikipedia for 14 ½ years. I have over 144,000 edits. I was recently Editor of the Week, and thank my fellow editors for the recognition. I am a member of WP:ARS. Have been for many years. And my guiding light in that regard is article improvement. Voting at AFDs has been secondary. I note that ARS has been constantly the I do not always vote. I always self censor. If I can vote Keep, I do. If I can’t I generally do not participate. In my business I am paid to be right 100% of the time. While I recognize that I am final in that job, and that the goal is at least aspirational since we are all subjcct to human fallability and making mistakes, it is my personal standard. I do not canvas. I do post at the ARS, and my goal is to get articles improved. If I vote, it is ordinarily in conjunction with article improvement. My improvements to articles that were part of the deletion process are monumental. I would also note that I frequently improve articles that are at AFD, and do not necessarily post them at WP:ARS. Part of the reason for doing that is that it will simply rile up those who want to delete articles. Inevitably, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle will turn up, usually vote DELETE, and make the obligatory “canvassing” slur. WP:ARS has a number of loiterers whose often articulated positions indicate that they want ARS to cease to exist, and/or at least be decapitated. The talk page at ARS and the listing of articles for improvement should be studied in its totality to understand the dynamic. It is not my purpose here to reopen these, but it is my purpose to fully inform the panel. It is also a fact that a posting at ARS list will beget attacks on that page and regularly produced accusations of canvassing. These are not helpful to the closers at the AFD pages, but simply turn them needlessly into an adversarial side show. If my comments at ARS are to be considered, there are lots of deletionists who have been WP:Uncivil and deserve their reward, too. I would also urge the arbitrators to consider context of the talk pages at ARS. If folks choose to make unjustified accusations (e.g., User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, who has been told by others to cool it and drop the stick) one should be able to respond. In fact, I don’t respond, and she repeatedly harasses me by name. She repeatedly makes accusations, and I just let them pass. I have always been insistent that editors who post an Article for Rescue at ARS put the *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|list of content for rescue consideration]]. <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> 02:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)<!--Template:Rescue list--></small> on AFD pages. It is ethically required, and is good practice. Nevertheless, whatever I say on that subject has been criticized.

I deny being insulting at AFD pages. Saying that there has been poor or ineffective WP:Before is not a personal disparagement. All editors are not created equal. It is possible that their research was substandard, albeit in good faith. But WP:Before is a useful guideline as to whether an article should be kept or deleted. It also sets forth a hierarchy that favors preservation if the article has been or can be improved. Additionally, where the article and its sourcing has been expanded, it sometimes becomes obvious that lots of sources were missed. WP:HEY has application. I have previously been accused of “spamming” WP:Before and WP:HEY. I don’t know what that means. I do know that I invoke the only when I genuinely believe they apply. WP:AGF. If they At AFD discussions, I ordinarily try to say it succinctly, and avoid repeated entries and arguments. WP:BLUDGEON works for me, but not for some of the deletionists. WP:COAL is a good practice, and I apply it the best I can.

Mass deletions (in one case 220 in one day by one editor) are problematical, and deserve to be called out. No one can cope with that. ARS cannot respond. Nor can it improve articles which can take many hours of time. This has got to stop, and it is rightly called out. Further, if you are easily persuaded that he really did a BEFORE check in a diligent way, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The statistical arguments are deceptive and wrong. If you want to get a fair picture, take a count of the number of times I voted and the number of times I was in tune with the final result. It isn’t required that I do that. But if you are going to Monday-morning quarterback, you should be asking the right questions and collecting all the pertinent data I do not know how to get that statistic, and doing it manually is out of the question for me. I lack the technical skills. Merely posting at ARS is not proof of “canvassing.” It is what the project is supposed to do. I note that ARS has been the subject of 10 deletion attempts. And productive editors who were preserving articles are now told they cannot participate. If my numbers are high, it is not evidence of “canvassing.” It is evidence of article improvement. If the articles were kept, it shows either that (1) the AFD was wrong in the first instance; or (2) the article was improved so that it should be kept (and may be vastly different than it was when nominate for deleting). Keeping the article under those circumstances is a win for the encyclopedia and our readers. In passing, I note that User:Highking has boldly taken the position that article improvement is not a valid response to an AFD nomination. The panel ought to squarely straighten that out. The critics also note that if an article is posted at WP:ARS I don’t vote Delete. I think I have, but it is a rarity. That only proves that I am not being canvassed, and that I am selective. In my experience, AFDs are like litigation and horse races. In litigation, lawyers give themselves too much of the credit for their successes, and too much of the blame for their losses. In horse races, the outcome is 90% horse and 10% rider. If the article deserves to be kept, hopefully the closer will see it in the article and the result will follow. If it isn’t there, it isn’t there. I have no vested interest in the article’s fate; although I acknowledge that providing substantial edits to an article that gets deleted is frustrating, but comes with the territory. It is an occupational hazard. Reasonable minds may differ. I also respect closers and outcomes. Conversely, I get upset when serial deletions are brought on quickly after a keep. It happens. Or the KEEP outcome is cleverly circumvented by a fast Redirect. I do not keep a scoreboard of the articles I have saved (other than the partial listing of outcomes at ARS – I don’t always put AFD discussions in which I participate on those boards). I believe that the participants should be advised of the results. Feedback is important to moral.. I note that some of the deletionists participants here do keep and maintain lists of the articles they got deleted. A body count, so to speak. Oh well!

The purpose of posting at WP:ARS and my participation in editing articles, is exemplified by the following:

• My way or the highway ARS posting

• Fit in or Fuck Off ARS posting

• The Wants (band) ARS posting AFD

• Legal Advisor (Poland) ARS postingAFD

• Daniel Sillman AFD

• List of Settlements in Bedfordshire by population

ARS posting AFD

• Ian Marsh (writer) AFD

• Mike Tinney ARS posting AFD

• Clop (erotic fan art) ARS posting AFD

• ARS public school the retaliatory strike

ARS posting ARS posting posting Silly retaliation Maybe it means Article Rescue Squadron? [sarcasm] Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for Molon labe-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? Even Andrew and Lightburst have cooled it a little after their tbans, and DF has participated in several AfDs (including this one) without stirring up drama. Why can’t you do the same? Not every AfD needs to be a battleground. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC) If this closes as no consensus because of their obstructing nonsense again you should just renominate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I’ll be taking them to ANI again first so they don’t immediately do it again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) nWho are you taking to ANI and for what reason? NemesisAT (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) ARS posting

• Various demographic articles

ARS posting ARS posting ARS posting ARS posting

• Robert Spinosa ARS posting

• Daniel Sillman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Sillman

• Uranian ARS posting AFD

• List of Conflict by duration Draft; Little Big Time ARS posting AFD

• Rob Roy McGregor Rob Roy McGregoir ARS posting

AFD 7 edits

• Vesey Alfred Davoren Vesey Alfred Davornen ARS posting AFD 99 edits

• Seed counting machine ARS posting AFD 57 edits

• Armament of the Iowa-class battleship ARS posting

AFD

• Big John (dinosaur)

ARS posting See the extended discussion which is buried. AFD 85 edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list&oldid=1051958333Bib John Dinosaur (See MZ Tourist comments – continuing and irrelevant atttack on ARS)Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic Parallel discussion

• Cherman Shaik ARS posting

• Mac Ross (admiral) [1]

• List of living Medal of Honor Recipents AFD

• Lubi-lubi I had put in sources years before AFD

• John C. England AFD See the comment by MZTourist

I am frankly shocked, Mztourist, in another AFD on another genuinely notable namesake, didn't you claim that nomination was supported by precedent to delete all articles on namesakes? You failed to acknowledge there had been a procedural keep on a mass deletion. In the interests of civility and collegiality, I urge you to be open and transparent, in every discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Keep Nominators who do not make a genuinely meaningful effort to comply with BEFORE let down the entire project. Please, if you ever consider nominating another article, be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 102 edits

• William W. Creamer [2]

• Shelby Gem Factory DYK

AFD Shelby Gem factor. Now a Good Article.

• Kristoffer Domeij AFD DYK 149 edits

• Edward Henry Allen AFD and mass deletion by User:Lettler and User;MZtourist

220 articles or thereabouts. I know about WP:AGF and apply it. But if you believe they did WP:Before in this process, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

• Bolt (cloth) AFD 150 edits Note this discussion: “Which info about bolts (fabric) would you wish to see in an article about (fabric) rolls? off topic wallpaper stuff could go into its own article, if necessary. (Also, "perjorative"? Are you a member of Project ARSehole too. It would explain a lot.) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF” 15:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC) This was discussed at length [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bolt_(cloth)

at the article’s talk page.]

• Tom Rees (airman) & Harold John Ellison Tom Rees (airman) ARS listing

AFD AFD “another User:Lettler special. Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_C._England Keep per WP:POINT. This article has been worked on by numerous editors to the point that it has appeared on the main page. It is therefore generally acceptable as an adornment to the encyclopedia per our policy WP:IAR. The nomination is based on WP:SOLDIER but that is an essay and so has no official standing and the current RfC Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rees (British soldier) Discussion at DYK

• Gun serial number Gun serial number ARS listingAFD 91 edits DYK

• List of tallest buildings in Augusta Georgia ARS listing AFD

• 86 (term) AFD

• Hamilton McWhorter III, William Mahlong Davis, Harry F. Bauer, George M. Campbell and Maurice D. Jester

DYK ARS listing See Mztourist’s comment here Harry F. Bauer, George M. Campbell, Maurice D. Jester Rescue listing

• Hamilton McWhorter III AFD DYK 117 edits

• Richard Haine AFD DYK28 edits

• Long face syndrome

AFD nDYK 59 edits

• Crooked BilletnAFD DYK 159 edits

• Derrick Morris AFD DYK 120 edits

• World record egg AFD DYK 103 edits

• Candida blankii AFD DYK 124 edits

• Daniella van Graas AFD DYK 121 edits

• A. D. Kenamond AFD

• Elizabeth L. Gardner AFD DYK 138 edits

• Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) AFD

70 edits

• Maira Khan AFD

• John Tiedtke John Tiedtke (2nd nomination) AFD talk DYK 117 edits

• S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes AFD DYK 113 edits

• Benno Bikes AFD DYK 75 edits

• Cecil Edwards and Democracy Manifest video AFD DYK 93 edits

• Albanese Candy AFD AFD 2ND nomination See User:Higking’s remarks.DYK 38 edits

• Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer) Speedy deletion DYK for Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer)

Updated DYK query.svg On 17 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Falklands War, Royal Navy officer Andy Auld helped make operational the Sea Harrier, a short take-off and vertical landing jet fighter? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while onC

• American athlete strikes talk DYK 21 edits

• Mercy dog Merger discussion DYK 72 edits

• Tom's Ice Cream Bowl AFD 111 edits

• Thomas J. Bray AFD DYK 96 edits

• Performance (textiles) AFD DYK 166 edits

• Arabeyes AFD

• Frank Masters AFD

• Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) Talk

DYK 110 edits at the article 73 edits at the DYK

• Church of All Saints, Houghton Regis proposed for deletIon. March 23, 2022 I ran across this on User:Dr. Blofelds page.

DYK 116 edits

As you will observe, my discourse at the AFDs is short. By no means is it disruptive. I refuse to be baited into jawing with those who have made up their already closed minds.. It is a vain act. I need tol persuade the closer, and I do that by improving the articles.

If one wants to talk about results, it is the horse that won the race, not me.

This whole exercise is about the inability of the deletionists to thwart a dedicated editor who goes the extra mile to research and document the article’s subject matter.

This is sour grapes.

Kicking me out of ARS and out of AFDs will not make Wikipedia a better place.

Speaking as one arbitrator (in real life) to other arbitrators, I am confident you will review the record and do the right thing

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)