Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 17 March 2012

To remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC).

• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This was first raised at WP:AN#Back_off_the_Hammer, the following section is copied from there:

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is well-known for his huge count of edits. Most of these are deletions: either blocks of content, or articles. The article deletions are getting out of hand and are based on an increasingly dubious interpretation of policy. This post is as a result of this WP:CSD#G1 List of most highly populated countries, a 30k article with > 60 references. I make no comment on the quality, suitability or future deletion of this article - which is now at AfD. In fact, I've past history with the article's creator (this is how I saw the speedy notice) and I've called for many of their additions to be deleted on quality grounds myself. What is clear though is that articles of this size, on ostensibly appropriate topics, are not suitable for speedy deletion. They're just too complicated to judge so expeditiously. In this case, it's not only a speedy but a G1 as "patent nonsense". To quote the last summary point of that rationale, "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." There is no way that G1 can be applied to this article, even if we choose to delete it very soon. Nor is this a new editor who might not understand such things.

This editor calls to delete what looks like an article a day. We have no limits on such, there is no good reason to have one - a valid deletion is a valid deletion. Yet looking at this vast list (which I admit, isn't easy) they're an unedifying stream of dubious judgement.

• WP:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band) (German heavy metal) seems to have been based on searching Gnews (relevance?) by one very common word and not finding the wheat for the chaff, thus claiming that no sources exist. It took me two minutes, and using a band member's name, to find sources. Perhaps WP:BEFORE was indeed followed, but in that case the Hammer's google-fu is clearly weak. There's also a mis-use of WP:BAND#1 to claim that interviews (any and all of them) are not sources, despite what WP:BAND#cite_note-selfpromo-0 actually states. We also see claims like, "If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9." I would remind the editor that the function of an encyclopedia is not to act as a score-keeping mechanism for how many articles an editor can manage to have deleted.
• WP:Articles for deletion/Xargs seems to be a clear case of "If I don't understand the topic, it's not notable". Nor is "xargs" a terribly difficult word to search for.
• WP:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day jokes (2nd nomination) was one I expected to be a clear deletion as listcruft. Yet it's not - it's quite reasonably sourced (for most items at least) and even if we pruned heavily, there is obviously a list there of large-scale incidents with clear secondary coverage.

Does it matter? After all, the barrage of keeps for April Fool's Day shows the robustness of WP in action. Yes, it does matter - because for everything that happens openly at AfD, there are others like WP:Articles for deletion/Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton that happen "under the hood" and invisibly. In this case, a speedy deletion was applied to an article already at AfD just hours after that AfD and with no time for any secondary discussion. Should that article have been kept? I would argue that its deletion was primarily WP:BITEy, where a new editor has created St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol (itself targeted for deletion) and because they created what should have been sections of an article as separate articles, these were deleted (and deleted rather than the rather more obvious merge). WMF tell us regularly that new editors should be encouraged, and this sort of response does nothing to encourage that. Incidentally, there are few Victorian churches in affluent areas that aren't notable, just on their architectural merits and the coverage that inevitably generates.

I'm bringing this to AN because RFC/U is both complex and toothless, but also because of the volumes involved. I consider that TenPoundHammer is acting outside of generally supportable behaviour, either through policy or consensus, and that because of the volume involved this requires a substantial and speedy response. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Desired outcome

1. TPH to raise Speedies, PRODs and AfDs only according to established policy, with some reasonable nomination provided to each one. This to include WP:BEFORE.
2. Some vaguely over-optimistic hope that the culture of WP might shift somewhat from the current points-scoring amongst administrative wannabees where an opportunity to delete something is seen as an opportunity to do "something" and rack up a scorecard of articles deleted, rather than our supposed goal of constructing an encyclopedia

Description

See paste above.

Evidence of disputed behavior

These are some recent (mid February to mid March 2012) deletion nominations I've all come across accidentally, I therefore believe this to be only the tip of the iceberg. —Ruud 14:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Failing WP:BEFORE on AFDs

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ICCF Finland
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xargs

Using WP:PROD for controversial deletions (i.e. sneaking stuff past a proper AFD)

• Wizard (band)

Using CSDs inappropriately

• List of most highly populated countries

War on templates (WP:DISRUPTIVE)

• Nominating {{cleanup}} over and over again: January 11, June 2011, another attempt at DRV, February 2012
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 24#Template:Expert-subject (and the resulting Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 9#Template:Expert-subject)

AfD nominations that don't analyze the alternatives to deletion, WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

Specifically, nominations need to include an argument either that there is objectionable material in the edit history in need of removal, or that the topic as a redirect would not be kept at RfD.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Halifax, Nova Scotia

Nomination argues, "Just blast it to smithereens.", for a topic that was or is or is commonly known as the capital of Nova Scotia (est. 1749, re-designated 1996).  See also, City of Halifax and Halifax Regional Municipality.

• See also WT:Articles for deletion#Halifax,_Nova_Scotia

Applicable policies and guidelines

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:BEFORE

General policy on AfD, CSD and the well-known issues involving deletion.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

See the AfDs.

Attempts by certifier Andy Dingley (talk)

1. WP:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band)
2. WP:AN#Back_off_the_Hammer

Attempts by certifier Ruud Koot (talk)

1. User talk:Ruud Koot#Wizard (band) + User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD
2. WP:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band)

Other attempts

1. User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:IINFO
2. User talk:TenPoundHammer#Inappropriate rationales in AfD Nominations

Twice I've asked TPH to cease pretending that IINFO means whatever he wants it to mean, and neither has gotten a single word of response from him. While I would normally give him another chance before raising this as a separate issue, since this RfC/U has been raised and certified, I find it appropriate to note these efforts here. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. User:Andy Dingley
2. —Ruud 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. I'm not sure - I've probably suggested to TPH a different approach on many occasions over the past five years or so, but not recalled any specific in a whil - in any case I endorse this page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Unusually, I'm not in the "outside view" section of an RFC. This is because, like Calisber, I've tried to get TenPoundHammer to modify xyr approach over the years. Moreover I've been involved in several AFD discussions started by TenPoundHammer. Where Andy Dingley and I disagree, and where my endorsement falls short, is that I think that simply talking to TenPoundHammer, rather than talking past xem, and explaining things such as how I approach articles, might have an effect. It's something that I've not had the time to do, however. (On the other hand, there are things in the editors' index that show how to look for sources and work on article improvement, so there are already things for TenPoundHammer and everyone else to read on this subject.) But yes, nominations like that of Xargs (AfD discussion) and Flyover country (AfD discussion), which was renominated a scant few days upon closure of the prior AFD discussion, are problematic. (There are articles on this subject from other encyclopaedias listed in Flyover country#Further reading, notice. Those encyclopaedia articles themselves cite further works on the subject.)

   It's unfair to single out TenPoundHammer as being the only one who doesn't do enough research before immediately reaching for a deletion request template. There are other editors who are downright lazy in their approach to building an encyclopaedia, thinking themselves to be in some sort of supervisory rôle while Somebody Else actually does the writing work; and that their task is to hypocritically go around pointing out where nobody, not even they themselves, have bothered to do any work. Their approach is in the long run a far more damaging one than TenPoundHammer's here. This is where I do agree with Andy Dingley's desired outcome, very strongly. But I don't want to make TenPoundHammer a poster child for that, since I don't see TenPoundHammer in that group.

   I have the general, and somewhat vague, impression that TenPoundHammer's problem is one of having good intentions but simply not knowing how best to put them into effect. The administrators' noticeboard won't solve this, administrator action won't solve this, and even this RFC won't solve this. What will solve this is TenPoundHammer getting to grips with things like how to find books that discuss particular subjects, how to use other encyclopaedias as clues to how subjects can be covered, and how to make intelligent use of search engines. That's an education and learning issue: expansion of TenPoundHammer's skill set to be a better researcher and writer. A large amount of people piling on at an RFC/U saying "Yes, here's another bad deletion nomination that I was involved in." is far less useful than a few people going to User talk:TenPoundHammer and pointing out all of the search tools that are listed in Template:Search for (examples over there ⇗) and giving some pointers on their use. (Here's one pointer from me: Observe that searches don't have to be for the article title.)

   Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

3. TPH needs to be more careful with his deletion nominations. That there are many other editors making quick or silly nominations is not really a good counterargument here. Someone should write WP:OTHEREDITORS to mirror WP:OTHERSTUFF. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Unfortunately, though I've worked pleasantly with the Hammer and his otters over quite a few years now, I also think that too many of his CSD and AfD nominations are done erroneously or in haste. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
5. TPH knows what needs to be done, but I think sometimes he decides he wants an article/template/whatever gone, and chooses to try to get rid of it by whatever means possible, whether corrrect or not. LadyofShalott 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Xargs (AfD discussion) is an important AfD to consider. First TPH deleted all but the first two sentences.. This was reverted. Then TPH prodded it with the reason "Notable? Not sure". This appears to go against WP:PROD, which reads "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate..." It was deproded with evidence of notability in the edit comment - evidence that TPH never disputed or even discussed on the article talk page. Finally, despite the evidence of notability that he never discussed, he filed an AfD with the comment "Deprodded with primary source. Doesn't seem individually notable. Couldn't find any real sources." If he had discussed it on the article talk page, he would have learned that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is not primary source for xargs - a UNIX command that goes back to the first revision of PWB/UNIX. Finally, when I noticed the AfD on my watchlist, In the first few seconds of looking I found two excellent sources establishing notability on the first page of the Google results for "xargs". It is difficult to believe that this is just poor Google-Fu. It really looks like spending less time looking for sources that establish notability than it takes to type "Couldn't find any real sources" into an AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Logical Cowboy

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

I think this RFC/U is well-intentioned, and it makes some good points. But it's also somewhat one-sided. For example, it does not mention that the editor has already acknowledged mistakes. More generally, these comments do not reflect the totality of the editor's contributions. I don't think it's literally true that "most" of the editor's comments are "deletions." If anything, most of his edits are additions to music articles. Also, the editor has created more than a thousand articles. I have found most of the editor's proposed deletions and comments in AfDs to be spot on. Here are a few recent examples. There are many, many more.

The bottom line is that I have no problem with these concerns being raised, and I hope that the editor finds the comments to be useful. I make my own comments here in an effort to balance out the RFC/U.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I agree, this user has made alot of contributions. Sure this user has made some mistakes, but doesn't everyone. I think this user has done more good a than bad JayJay 17:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3.  Sandstein  10:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

single-issue view by Beeblebrox

There is a basic problem with point two of the "desired outcome" section, in that it expresses a desire for a community-wide change, which is outside the scope of a discussion of a single user. Suggest that point 2 be struck.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Strictly speaking yes, however I've always had a problem with editors who concentrate on deleting or attempting to delete material as being somehow antithetical to the idea of (a) collaborative editing and (b) encyclopedia building, especially with such a low success rate. i.e. so the RfC can serve as a general reminder. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
4.  Sandstein  10:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
5. JayJay 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
6. FASTILY 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Sandstein

I have closed and commented in many AfDs, and I do not recall TenPoundHammer's opinions or nominations as particularly problematic. I am unimpressed by the vague nature of the problems alleged (and evidence submitted) in this RfC, and they do not convince me that they warrant an examination of the editor's conduct. In the evidence, the only edit that is clearly problematic is the faulty CSD nomination of List of most highly populated countries as {{db-nonsense}}. As to the alleged violations of WP:BEFORE, the evidence does not make clear, and it is not immediately apparent, how this step of the deletion process is supposed to have been violated in these cases. This also applies to the PROD. As to the template deletion nominations, the discussions apparently resulted in no consensus, so it is not clear why the repeated nominations are considered particularly disruptive in and of themselves. (I'm not saying that there might not be problems here, just that the RfC does a poor job of convincing me that there are.)

More generally, WP:BEFORE is not on a page that is labeled as a policy or guideline, and expecting deletion nominators to conduct a thorough search for sources beyond those cited in the article conflicts with the policy-based principle of WP:V, and specifically WP:BURDEN, that it is those who write or want to retain content who are responsible for finding and citing sources. On these grounds, I do not think that it is objectionable to nominate for deletion articles that do not establish their subject's notability without conducting a prior search for sources that goes beyond an initial Google search. Conducting detailed research is the responsibility of those who write or want to retain the article.  Sandstein  10:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Agreed, I am not finding the evidence or the explanation of the supposed problem very compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
2. A reasonable interpretation and I generally trust Sandstein's judgment of users from his experience. MBisanz 17:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
3. FASTILY 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Bmusician 01:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another view by Beeblebrox

The whole thing about the PROD of the Wizard article being deceptive is nonsense. The accusation that it was used for "sneaking stuff past a proper AFD" is obviously an assumption of bad faith. TPH is certainly aware that a PROD can be removed by any user at any time, so if there was any doubt that is what would happen, and what did in fact happen.

And then we see the AFD, which the certifiers are holding forth as an attempt to resolve this issue. What I see there is an AFD where the certifiers immediately began attacking the user making the nomination rather than limiting their comments to the subject under discussion. And then we see User:Warden, who is probably one of the most extremist inclusionist, coming to TPHs defense, so I'm having trouble seeing that incident as evidence of rabid, bad-faith deletionism as the certifiers would have us believe.

Rudd's post to TPH's talk page, also given as evidence of trying to resolve this issue, is so utterly condescending and dripping with accusations of bad faith that TPH should be commended, not censured, for just ignoring it.

Whenever one opens a discussion like this, they should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. The behavior exhibited at and around the Wizard AFD is disgraceful, and using it as an example of supposed attempts at dispute resolution is about as ineffective a strategy to convince others as I can imagine.

And of course going to an admin board with a sarcastic attack on another user (back off the hammer? seriously?) cannot be regarded as serious attempt at dispute resolution but rather as an attempt to evoke an emotional response and get some sort of sanction on TPH.

As to the broader issue this shabby collection of evidence is supposedly trying to address, as others have mentioned, WP:BEFORE is advice, while WP:BURDEN is a subsection of WP:V, one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, so if we're going to get in a "my policy is bigger than yours" contest it's pretty obvious which side that would come down on. BEFORE is increasingly used like a blunt object in deletion discussions to disparage the opinions and efforts of anyone who dares to comment that maybe we should delete articles with poor sourcing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
2. FASTILY 01:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Technical query/proposal by Casliber

I really hate RfCs with support and no comment/oppose sections. It (a) facilitates (to me) the impression of talking past not to others with opposing points of view, and (b) gives no idea of consensus - do the lack of supports mean neutrals, conditional supports or opposes?

Users who endorse this summary and are happy for the above to have neutral/oppose/comment sections:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
2. JayJay 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. FASTILY 01:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse the current layout:

1. Yes and no. I totally get what you are saying, but normally at these user rfcs this format is used and actual threaded discussion is done on the talk page. That hasn't happened yet, and actually this view and possibly my "single issue view" above probably should have been posted there for discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I don't have a strong preference either way - both forms have their disadvantages. I'll leave my responses in another view and/or on the talk page. —Ruud 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mu:

1. The current layout does encourage "talking past" each other, but I'm not sure that the proposed change is the right way to solve the issue. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

   So what would you suggest? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

   nice judo. It's very late and I've been re-installing Morrowind so forgive me if this is a slightly incoherent response. 1) Beeblebrox talks about the split between the talk page and the "cover" page, but it's a totally arbitrary divide. Why is it there? 2) An RfC ther are usually multiple issues brought by the, ah, complainant. As with this one, some of them will be outside what an RfC can cover. 3) RfC/Fae was another good example. How many different things were being discussed at one time? 4) What's the point of an RfC, anyway? While I'm pleased to see that my "desired outcome" edit stuck, the history of that template also is an example of what's wrong with RfCs, that people edit the form and expect that to change the behavior. 4) Maybe a short "warm up" where there's general discussion (on the talk page?) about what the actual issues are, then those issues get split out into sections on the main page. 5) Get the wonderkinds who do the signpost to do RfCs. Journalism like. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Jclemens

Ten Pound Hammer has been a fixture in deletion discussions for years. He should be exemplifying best practices in ways that we do not expect newbies to. Instead, what this series of concerns demonstrates is disregard for best practices: Contra Sandstein, it really makes no difference what WP:BEFORE is labeled, because editors who have participated in the area for as long as TPH has have generally developed an intrinsic understanding of its expectations and both follow them and describe how they do so in their nominations. Instead of an elder statesman, TPH comes across little different than a newbie, misquoting WP:IINFO (see my links above), and then, unlike a true newbie, failing to respond to advice and incorporate it into future nominations. Inclusionists who misquote relevant guidelines in deletion discussions are roundly taken to task for misconstruing those guidelines, and properly so. Turnabout is fair play, and TPH needs to demonstrate appropriate care in his nominations. If the atmosphere at AfD is to improve, then all long-term participants need to behave well and lead by example, engaging in the best interests of the encyclopedia, not deceptively or inaccurately citing policies and guidelines in an attempt to bias the outcome of a deletion discussion. TPH should know better, and should be encouraged to participate scrupulously in the future or face additional scrutiny and possibly consequences if he declines to follow best practices after being advised to do so in this RfC/U. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Totally, Sandstein is missing the point above. Yes there are some unproblematic and straightforward AfDs etc., but there are also some ones that are clear keeps. When I get a chance, I'll try and find some. Essentially, if doing very minimal searching shows a nomination meets general notability guidelines, then it indicates the nominator is being lazy or sloppy, or dishonest in nominating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes, this is well-put. LadyofShalott 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. —Ruud 01:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Yes there are some good nominations; if a person nominated articles by chance, there would be many good ones. I think TPH does somewhat better than chance. But there are so many truly problematic decision to be made at AfD that we need to concentrate on, and so many unnoticed older really impossibly promotional or copyvio articles that need to be AfD'd that wasting everyone's time including his own on nomination of which perhaps one-quarter at least are really unjustified -- and many not just in the sense of errors but totally weird-- is not productive behavior. It is true there are some other people who do likewise, but we need to approach this one at a time. Of course there will be articles where he & I will honestly disagree; they're not the problem and articles of questionable notability that are eventually found notable are not what this RfC is about. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC) .
5. In general, I adhere to this view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
6. JayJay 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Yes - TPH should be an exemplar of "best practice" which is where the problem certainly appears to fall. I trust he will acknowledge the problem and seek to be more judicious in the future. Collect (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
8. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Yes. TenPoundHammer has a history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes or seconds. He should be warned, and then if he fails to demonstrate an ability to conduct a thorough search for sources, he should be restricted from nominating or prodding articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Carrite

I somehow feel a close personal connection to TenPoundHammer, probably because he busted my nuts over nothing not once but twice at ANI (ostensibly because of my self-proclaimed inclusionism and his committed deletionism). Yet, despite that, and despite being on opposite sides of more than a few deletion debates over the subsequent last couple years, I think we've gained at least a grudging respect for one another. This RfC is utterly improper, to my mind, and should be immediately closed. There is no evidence that Mr. Hammer has been abusive of Guidelines in his nominations, there is no evidence that he has been disruptive in intent. He does not misuse automated tools to shotgun nominations in a lazy manner. He is an individual who draws inclusion boundaries a bit more stringently than the majority of Wikipedians. I think he and others like him at AfD are a perfect counterbalance to Article Rescue Squad, who scramble to source out pieces and save them from deletion attacks — a yin and yang, if you will, or if you prefer dialectics to eastern philosophy: a struggle of opposites from which synthesis emerges. Certainly, some of Mr. Hammer's nominations are a bit sketchy. Still, it is good that he is there to call people on their marginal sourcing and to challenge their fuzzy logic in debates. What is the intent here — to burn the guy for believing what he believes? That's bogus. I disagree with the man, but I'll defend his right to bring the AfD challenges he believes necessary. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As bigmouth who said it. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
2. FASTILY 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment. It was mentioned above there are no comment sections, so I boldly start one. Carrite, you;ver missed the point entirely. RThe point of deletion process is to delete the articles that cannot be improved, keep the ones that are good enough, and fix the ones that can be improved sufficiently to be included. The effectiveness of this depends upon judicious selection; it is very difficult to improve articles in 7 days only, so this is practical only if the number of articles that need this treatment is kept to a minimum. This means that articles which are fairly sure to be keepable without improvement not be nominated in the first place, and that those that need improvement but can be easily fixed get fixed, rather than nominated (that's the point of BEFORE). To the extent people add unnecessary articles to the discussion, they are interfering with this process, and this holds equally if one is taking a deletionist approach: if I want to delete articles of a given type, I can do this effectively if I make sure that the ones I do nominate will be deleted; if I clutter the process up with those that will be kept, people will not trust me, will waste time trying to impugn my work even to the extent of looking for technical objections, and I will get fewer articles appropriately deleted than if I had been more selective about it. The attitude you're taking to it is the same as TPH's--that AfD is a contest. Just as Misplaced Pages is not a game, AfD is not a contest. It's a attempt by well meaning people not to score points, not to see how clever they are in argument , but to sort out articles. Nominating articles just to see what will happen makes a game out of it. Nominating articles so widely that nobody can properly considering makes it a coin-toss. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, AfD is not the Article Improvement Workshop. It is where the rubber meets the road at Misplaced Pages, where consensus on what is kept and keepable vs. deleted and deletable is decided. Some, like Mr. Hammer, LibStar, and others, push an aggressively limited inclusionary line. Others, like Col. Warden, for example, push an alternative and more expansive vision. It is a living, breathing organism where policy is formed, the results of which directly or indirectly guides New Page Patrol. Nobody's calling it a game, least of all Mr. Hammer or me. It's a process. It's not where you drag articles to get fixed, it is where inclusionary and exclusionary lines are draw, with sweeping implications for multitudes of others on the books or to be created. Trying to knee cap the ultra-inclusionists of Article Rescue Squad — as some have been trying to do lately — THAT is a "game," as you call it. Trying to take out Mr. Hammer or any other hard-line deletionist is the flip-side of the same coin — THAT is a "game". It's a very POV-driven game, might I add — both campaigns are. AfD NEEDS free discussion and competing visions. This RfC is improper because it attempts to constrain debate and reduce the range of acceptable visions qualified for participation. Carrite (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Seldom have I seen a statement with so many things in it that I feel should be addressed. That is not a criticism, BTW; one possible interpretation is that I myself am misguided in a lot of areas and the statement corrected several of them. Or not.

Re: "There is no evidence that Mr. Hammer has been abusive of Guidelines in his nominations"; I presented evidence that on multiple occasions TPH failed to find sources that other editors found in seconds. You can dispute my conclusion, but please don't say there is no evidence after I gave you evidence.

Re: "This RfC is improper because it attempts to constrain debate and reduce the range of acceptable visions qualified for participation"; not making any effort to find sources is not in the range of acceptable visions qualified for participation. It is not an acceptable vision at all. Again, you can dispute my assertion that he doesn't look, but please don't imply that not looking is acceptable behavior.

Re: "...ultra-inclusionists of Article Rescue Squad"; the code of conduct at WP:ARS and the name "Article Rescue Squadron" say that the goal or ARS is not inclusionism, but rather improving deficient articles -- if you don't improve articles, you aren't an article rescuer. The language you have chosen - saying that TPH is not a deletionist but rather "an individual who draws inclusion boundaries a bit more stringently than the majority of Wikipedians" and saying that ARS are not just inclusionists but "ultra-inclusionists" -- says more about your POV that it does about what you are describing. Again, the problem is that TPH does not do a proper search for sources, not whether he is inclusionist or deletionist.

Re: "It is good that he is there to call people on their marginal sourcing"; Please look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xargs where it literally took me seconds to find what TPH claimed to be unable to find. Are you prepared to argue that what I did there was marginal sourcing and what he did there was calling me on it?

Re: "Certainly, some of Mr. Hammer's nominations are a bit sketchy"; as Jclemens pointed out (and many editors have endorsed) TPH has been at this for far too long to be still making sketchy nominations. It this experience level he should be exemplifying best practices, not nominating without looking for sources.

TPH should be warned, and then if he continues to fail to demonstrate an ability to conduct a thorough search for sources, he should be restricted from any deletion activities that are based upon his inability to find sources. This isn't about deletionism. It is about being far worse at finding sources than pretty much anyone else. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.