Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame

I marked this as historical [1] eight years ago, as it was not being used, but that was removed nearly a year later when someone decided to start editing it again. I simply do not think this page is appropriate. A self-selected hall-of-fame, with no clear criteria for inclusion, no apparent rules of any kind, no new entries in over three years, and a talk page that has not been used for discussion of the scope and purpose of the page in fourteen years.

Additionally, there are a number of entries in this list of supposedly great people who turned out to be truly awful people, one of whom still actively trolls Wikipedia on a regular basis, and several others who were socking and vote stacking. In fact, it was two of these offenders that created the hall of fame in the first place. These people do not need a memorial to their deceit or dishonesty hosted on Wikipedia.

There's just too many problems here for WP to continue hosting this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Case not nearly made. Even assuming that all that is really asked for is blank and archive, keeping the history available, the case is not not nearly made. It is not nearly good enough to delete Wikipedia history on the basis that some are alleged to be awful. It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.

There is no attempt to substantiate ongoing harm. There is no attempt to argue that all involved, especially the modern editors, are awful, let alone an objective net negative contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it. I'm not sure I understand. I have to write an essay explaining why two banned trolls, one of whom is still actively harassing people over grudges from like 10-15 years ago, are not good people? I mean, that isn't even my only point but to be required to write an essay to justify one deletion discussion is an entirely new concept to me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS Well, that's odd because the ARS is still active and I have not in any way proposed shutting the whole thing down. I just don't think we ought to host this one specific page, which has no criteria for inclusion and is therefore just a randomly selected list of AFD discussions that random people have decided to highlight.

and here's that executive summary you asked for
Of course I did also mention that it was created by two people who turned out to be awful trolls. I didn't mention their names but here they are: A Nobody, since banned by ArbCom for faking a crisis to avoid discussing their own behavior, and banned by the community for socking and votestacking.Continued socking from 2009-2021. They also childishly pre-emptively banned people they didn't like from a wikia site that they were an admin on, regardless of the fact that the people they were banning had no edits there and were mostly unaware it even existed. Wikia yelled at them for that. So that's pretty toxic, but not as bad as Ikip, banned by the community for socking and votestacking, years later, globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for relentless ongoing harassment of users he has a grudge against. To be transparent, that does include me, I am one of his many chosen victims ho chooses to focus on when harassing people. Malicious socking and harassment from 2010-present. The first several hundred edits are these two. And then there's Benjiboi, blocked for... wait for it... confirmed socking, later banned by the community for the same, continued to sock for over a decade. They were all in good standing when they created this monstrosity, but they didn't bother making it clear how it is supposed to work, and nobody else has ever bothered to do so either. There are people listed here who were and are simply good faith members of the ARS trying to save content from deletion, but why some debates are listed and the vast majority are not is as clear as mud. It simply has no value, no context, no reason to be hosted here.

and here's that executive summary you asked for

Of course I did also mention that it was created by two people who turned out to be awful trolls. I didn't mention their names but here they are: A Nobody, since banned by ArbCom for faking a crisis to avoid discussing their own behavior, and banned by the community for socking and votestacking.Continued socking from 2009-2021. They also childishly pre-emptively banned people they didn't like from a wikia site that they were an admin on, regardless of the fact that the people they were banning had no edits there and were mostly unaware it even existed. Wikia yelled at them for that.

So that's pretty toxic, but not as bad as Ikip, banned by the community for socking and votestacking, years later, globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for relentless ongoing harassment of users he has a grudge against. To be transparent, that does include me, I am one of his many chosen victims ho chooses to focus on when harassing people. Malicious socking and harassment from 2010-present.

The first several hundred edits are these two.

And then there's Benjiboi, blocked for... wait for it... confirmed socking, later banned by the community for the same, continued to sock for over a decade.

They were all in good standing when they created this monstrosity, but they didn't bother making it clear how it is supposed to work, and nobody else has ever bothered to do so either.

There are people listed here who were and are simply good faith members of the ARS trying to save content from deletion, but why some debates are listed and the vast majority are not is as clear as mud.

It simply has no value, no context, no reason to be hosted here.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I, for one, hardly see the listing of an editor here as glorifying them, but only as indicating the the ARS glorifies them. If the ARS continues to exist, it can continue to have its heroes, and other editors can ignore the list. If someone wants to delete the ARS itself, I am willing to take part in yet another vote to delete it as not serving any purpose in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]