This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with ((subst:rfan|dm|name of section header)), indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

• I have some objections to question 5c from MurderByDeadcopy which I see as rather loaded. I disagree that, with regards to new-page-patrollers with a lot of deletion nominations, "it is clear that that work does more to drive writers away from the project (...) since often times the first contact a new writer receives here on Wikipedia is a big AfD warning sign followed by a ton of Wikilawyering" -- I wonder what MurderByDeadcopy would rather do with the hundreds of trash articles that are created every day by users who simply don't know better. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support those objections. It is critical that WP isn't loaded up with lots of articles that don't meet WP:GNG, and the AfD process usually works well IMO. Someone has to tag them. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I had rather thought that the whole false dichotomy of "inclusionists-vs-deletionists vying for Wikipedia's soul" was something that was more or less in the past as most users seem to have moved beyond it... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside their contributions, have you looked at this user's userpage? I can safely say that they are not a happy Wikipedian.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why I can't load the edit count of your edits? 333-blue 06:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MurderByDeadcopy's or mine? MBD has a total of 460 edits including deleted edits. I have a few more. BTW, sometimes the tool doesn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false assumption that deleting articles that do not meet our standards drive people away. If we never deleted anything, Wikipedia would be a much less substantial base of information, particularly for reliable information, and likely drive away real writers. Mkdw^talk 11:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record I support MurderByDeadcopy right to ask the question they did, and I do not understand why asking this question gives others here the right to disparage him/her. MurderByDeadcopy is not the only editor who believes that deletions drive away new editors, but he/she seems to be the only editor who has the guts to say so publicly. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that speedy deletion does drive some editors away - but IMO mostly those that came here with an axe to grind, a 'friend' to attack, or a business or career to promote. The others will usually listen. No stats to produce, just IMO. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently the question has been asked, What would I do differently? Here you go!

1. Unless an article meets the criteria for "Speedy Delete" it cannot get an AfD for a month since that will allow given time to be made for changes. This gives a writer the time to get help etc. especially if they work and are not spending 24 hours every day on Wikipedia. There are plenty of articles already on Wikipedia that can be improved or deleted.

2. One cannot nominate or vote on AfD"s until they have at least 100 edits. AfD's are being gamed. There are places on Reddit telling new editors one way to get in good on Wikipedia is to go to AfD and vote.

3. AfD's should not be deleted for two weeks instead of one week. There's ton's more work involved in attempting to Keep an article than in voting to Delete an article.

4. A redesign of the AfD warning. Does the warning really need to be red or look as though one's about to drive off some cliff? Also, does a user really need or deserve 4 warnings?

5.Whatever that Page Patrol warning is, it also needs to be renamed.

For the record, I see this as more of a Negativism-vs-Positivism than inclusionists-vs-deletionists. I also believe Wikipedia's greatest resource is (or should) writers. And I've got to wonder why more isn't being done to welcome writers. Because when I check through AfD's (and these are AfD's that are not deleted) the most often thing I see is that the writer of the article never comes back. Now, I obviously don't have any stats, but, so far, I've only found one new writer who has stay on Wikipedia. The other huge issue I see on Wikipedia is paranoia, but I don't see any ways to solve that one! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if an article does not meet WP:SPEEDY but qualifies under WP:DEL it "cannot get an AfD for a month"? Mkdw^talk 07:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here[1] for a good discussion of some major problems with AfD. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 15:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of many problems with AFD. I was however asking you a question. Mkdw^talk 17:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm late to the party, but I wanted to touch on this topic nevertheless. I had a look at the edits in that article and found nothing particularly suspect. Some of the articles on Kosovo will be inherently messy for the foreseeable future, not just because it's a disputed territory, but because the body of reliable sources will by and large be using the Serbian terminology, despite the fact the region's majority Albanian population has its own terminology that is ostensibly more appropriate nowadays.

Andrew, I very much appreciate the concern, but even if your impression turns out to be right, there are tools at the community's disposal for a redress. Eyeballs will probably be on Vanjagenije's admin actions on articles related to Kosovo anyway, so I were to expect issues, I wouldn't really expect them there.

I tend to police NPOV violations in the WP:ARBMAC topic area, and over the last decade my overall impression would be that we really need more editors with admin powers who can help separate the wheat from the chaff. Vanjagenije's inherent exposure to the talking points of the topic area, but uneven exposure to the entire set of articles in it, puts him in a distinctly favorable position to maintain order, because he can probably more quickly read through the edits that are WP:NOTHERE compared to other admins, yet worry about being WP:INVOLVED less.

The one time I've been sanctioned for abuse of admin privilege was in this topic area when the sequence of events led to me blocking unhelpful editors in an overzealous manner - where it was all too easy for neutral bystanders to perceive me as improperly involved because I also have a content contribution in parts of the topic area that I policed. It would have been immensely helpful if at the time I had known that e.g. Vanjagenije was also watching the same ridiculous flamewar and if I could have relied on him to relieve me of the responsibility to end it. In that and probably many other cases, knowing that I'm not tilting at the windmills -- by expecting wholly neutral admins to spend days wading through mountains of bullshit and take the plunge -- would have resulted in a far more efficient maintenance of the encyclopedia.

On that note, we really need to recruit User:GregorB and User:Peacemaker67. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my block log and general tendency towards incivility would make it through RfA... But thanks for thinking of me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been watching you recently at Talk:Aloysius Stepinac, and you didn't seem to have lost temper there, despite the fact you seem to have been dealing with a fairly competent yet fairly biased editor. And obviously you've dealt with Antidiskriminator for years without blowing your brains out. That tells me you're quite sufficiently level-headed enough to be an admin in this topic area. Substantial content contribution will be a problem, obviously, but still.

Over time, we haven't had much luck attracting admins in this topic area. I can recall User:Dijxtra and User:Zocky having the tools, both of whom are pretty much inactive, have been for a while. Sorry if I forgot anyone else.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, thank you for an honorable mention... I regret to say, however, that I'm not really interested in getting a badge. I have a bit of a distaste towards procedural stuff and dealing with nasty individuals. Also, for the record: I've always held your work as an admin and an editor in high regard. In all these years, I don't recall having disagreed with your actions more than a couple of times. My views are rather particular sometimes, so I suppose that says a lot... :-) GregorB (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]