Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. 

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Fully support. I'd personally frame the last clause as a sentence and write it as this: Good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions if other disruption-reducing options are unsuccessful.  Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. BDD ( talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Drafter's note: picking this one from the principles page was surprisingly difficult given how many close permutations we've had. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Healthy and unhealthy conflict

2) Conflict is unavoidable and an inherent part of processes like the bold, revert, discuss cycle and deletion discussions. These processes work effectively when editors engage in healthy conflict by debating ideas, openly providing information, and seeking mutual understanding of an issue. Sniping criticism, ad hominem arguments, and incivility are harmful to other editors and the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. While healthy conflict is essential to building an encyclopedia, editors who engage in unhealthy conflict may be sanctioned.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Per Kevin below I'd prefer "disputes are unavoidable", but I still support this. Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Really good job on this one! Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Thank you for writing this new principle – I'm glad that we're adding to our bank of principles with general future application. I think I mostly agree with it. The part that I'm having a little trouble getting on board with is Conflict is unavoidable – is it really? Disagreement and dispute is unavoidable, but I think conflict implies much beyond mere disagreement. Maybe the differences is mostly semantic when we're talking about "healthy conflict" or "healthy dispute". But ideally I'd like to avoid the "Conflict is unavoidable" part – even healthier conflict can often be avoided. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The term "conflict" comes from the literature, specifically Amason (1996) and Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois (1997) who studied the relationship between "conflict" and decision quality in managerial contexts. "Disagreement", "dispute", and "conflict" are similar but not identical, and "conflict" seems the best characterization.

Disagreement can exist without conflict, and you're correct that structures can be created which avoid even healthy conflict, but the argument of the cited work is that this leads to poor quality decisions. Our processes are set up to allow and incentivize conflict, and the Arbitration Committee is abnormal on Wikipedia as it is structured specifically to disincentivize conflict. If conflict were not an inherent part of deletion discussions, they would not be structured as discussions or debates but would instead be anonymous polls without room for comment.

A "dispute" is protracted and usually affective, whereas a "conflict" can be momentary or protracted and cognitive or affective. As a general rule, the Arbitration Committee handles intractable disputes; we do not handle individualized conflicts. As another example, this response to you is a (cognitive) conflict but I would hesitate to call it a dispute. As for the literature, Amason (1996) categorizes "disputes" as an aspect of affective (unhealthy) conflict: "when conflict is dysfunctional, it tends to be emotional and focused on personal incompatibilities or disputes [citations omitted]".

So while there's room for revision and improvement, the choice of "conflict" over other options was a conscious one, and it's worth considering why and how it's been used previously in this context. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks Wug. I'll take a look. The reason I'm being a bit anal about this is that it's generally a great principle and I can see it being widely reused in a large number of future ArbCom cases – so we should take the time to make sure every part is something we're comfortable with now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Consensus

3) Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. BDD ( talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed deletion

4) Proposed deletion (PROD) is a streamlined process for nominating an article for deletion. It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. Proposed deletions are subject to the deletion policy, which requires that alternatives to deletion are considered before nomination. A prior search for more sources to establish notability is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Noting that PROD'd articles should be very easy to undelete if there is any opposition to the deletion, so other processes can be used. Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. BDD ( talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Bludgeoning

5) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Not only does this water down their own contributions, it drowns out other editors. Participants get one !vote, and a reasonable number of replies to make the most salient points, but editors need not try to rebut all or even some of the comments they disagree with. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and weakens the strength of discussions.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I am particularly proud of this one. I believe this is the first principle we've had about bludgeoning, and the drafters put a lot of thought into it. I want to emphasize the key point, which is particularly relevant at AfD: Participants get one !vote, and a reasonable number of replies to make the most salient points but editors need not try to rebut all or even some of the comments they disagree with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I am happy to see this. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. I share the concerns of isaacl on the talk page, specifically I think Participants get one !vote is too reductive. That said, this is our first pass at what is an otherwise very good principle. If it's only flaw is not having a lengthy description of how discussions work, then I'm okay with that. — Wug· a·po·des​ 04:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Wugapodes took the words out of my mouth. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. -- BDD ( talk) 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I cannot support this as written, simply due to the line "participants get one !vote" - that's not how discussions on Wikipedia work. We work by consensus, and that consensus can be generated through initial statements or through subsequent discussion, and it's up to the closer to weigh each point. I do agree with the general point about reasonable number of replies and how bludgeoning can weigh down discussions and cause problems, but let's be clear, the model we use does require discussion and rebutting Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   My understanding is that "get one !vote" does not preclude the value of subsequent discussion. The principle addresses what constitutes reasonable discussion and rebuttal, so I don't get the reading that "get one !vote" is equivalent to "get one comment". If I did, I'd also oppose, but I think the phrase is trying to get at something different, but which is hard to articulate succinctly. It's certainly true that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between a person and how their opinion gets weighted; that's the underlying reason why sockpuppetry is forbidden in discussions. So while I think the phrase could be improved, I don't see it as contrary to our principles and like you would oppose it being read in that way. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   My issue is more around being so prescriptive on how our discussions on Wikipedia work - pushing us towards voting (even with a ! modifier), when many of our discussions are more free form. Sometimes voting makes things a little clearer to the closer (say, RfA), but I don't want to be pushing all our formal discussions in that manner. Worm^TT( talk) 09:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

2. With WTT here for precisely the same line, but I agree that the shape of this principle is overall reasonable. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I also see issues with that line. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Prefer 5.1. I'm generally supportive of this proposal, but not willing to be the #7 which pushes it over the line before the alternate has been considered. Cabayi ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Bludgeoning (alt)

5.1) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Support:

1. The original proposal was a great idea and I thought making a few tweaks would address some comments I saw here and on the talk page. The last sentence ("Editors should particularly avoid") was sort of tacked on and I'm happy to remove it; I just thought it was good advice that fit with the theme. (It comes from the second quote on my user page.) Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I prefer this to #5, mainly for the reasons given by the opposition to that Principle. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I support this version Worm^TT( talk) 09:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Cabayi ( talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Equal first choice with 5 (only pass 1). Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. -- BDD ( talk) 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Equal first choice with 5 (only pass 1). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Prefer to 5 (only pass one) — Wug· a·po·des​ 17:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. This is already passing over the above version, just indicating I'm fine with this one. Donald Albury 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'm looking closer at this and I'm still seeing issues. Some are along the lines of jc37 on the talk page: I'd really like to see this be a principle from the point of view of generating consensus, and secondarily it does appear with its explicit reference to an essay to elevate that piece. Besides the larger issues, here are some copyediting issues:
   1. making so many pointscomments
   2. What is and weakens the strength of discussions supposed to mean?
   3. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince ... everyone else I think this is trying to target just the people already involved in a discussion, but it is trivial (and policy-wrong) to read it as still-uninvolved persons.
   -- Izno ( talk) 16:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   I have applied the copyedits. (I won't ping everyone because I don't think they change the meaning of the thing, but if anyone disagrees, let me know.) For the other points, I currently am of the opinion (weakly held) that a principle addressing this topic that names one or two problematic behaviors is probably more effective than any alternate format, but I may change my mind. Enterprisey ( talk!) 03:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

2. Wordier and less pithy. Further, I remain a strong advocate of the original because the context here is AfD. The original principle specifically notes that this one applies in formal discussions. Folks have seized on the "one !vote", but I don't see how that is incorrect. When you're at AfD, you don't get to !vote twice, or three times, or ten. Instead, a closer is going to assign you one opinion at the end of the day. If you start typing multiple !votes, they're going to get struck. So I don't see how that is wrong. But compared to this version, I would be more fond of a version that simply removed the one vote line so that it instead read Participants get a reasonable number of replies to make the most salient points, but editors need not try to rebut all or even some of the comments they disagree with. Because that's the key about bludgeoning at AfD. When people start replying to every single comment they disagree with, they are bludgeoning that discussion. What they're doing is making a barrier to entry, and crowding out other's viewpoints. Even if each comment is in some way reasonable, when taken together they are a problem. Its not even about trying to change other's minds, its about editors who feel they have to rebut every even mildly incorrect statement. But that's not necessary. Closers are bright people, they know how to spot a fishy argument. So ultimately, the number of replies at AfD should be limited to a reasonable amount for the sake of efficiency and sanity. I don't think this version gets that across. I'd also like to point out that the language in 5 is in no way intended to stop discussion, or be a barrier to creating consensus. Instead, its meant to be a barrier to those who wish to hijack discussions and drive away perceived opponents. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Battleground conduct

6) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. BDD ( talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Repeated behavior

7) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Izno ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Primefac ( talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. BDD ( talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Locus of dispute: Mass creation of articles

1) A locus of dispute centers around the conduct of named parties in the mass creation of stubs and how named parties and the wider community handle those articles in the deletion process.

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Izno ( talk) 02:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Locus of dispute: Conduct at Articles for Deletion

2) A locus of dispute centers around the conduct of named parties at Articles for Deletion (AfD).

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Izno ( talk) 02:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7&6=thirteen

3) 7&6=thirteen ( talk · contribs) has been named in four large Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) discussions since February 2021 ( Feb 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Jun 2022). The February 2021 thread was closed with a warning for personal attacks and hostility towards others; the October 2021 thread was closed with a final warning. The November and June threads were closed recommending Arbitration to the editors as ANI was unable to solve the issue. Since the final warning, 7&6=thirteen leveled personal attacks at Articles for deletion/New Chapter towards HighKing and MrsSnoozyTurtle and displayed a battleground mentality, particularly during Article Rescue Squadron discussions (e.g. November 2021, December 2021, & June 2022).

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. This FOF summaries many, but not all, of the meritorious issues that have been presented with Thirteen's behavior. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Izno ( talk) 02:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Johnpacklambert sanction history

4) Johnpacklambert ( talk · contribs) has been topic banned by the community from nominating more than one article per day at AfD ( Mar 2017) and from religious articles ( Sep 2021). He has been blocked one time for violating each of these topic bans, though each block was ended early. In August 2021 he was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, which was lifted twelve days later with an explicit warning about deletion efforts with Category:1922 births pages ( Sept 2021). Since 2021, he was also named in extensive ANI discussions in February 2021, closed with no action, April 2021, in which he apologized for comments he made, July 2021, closed with no action, December 2021, in which he was warned about potential topic ban violations, and June 2022, which was filed shortly before this case was opened.

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. A concerning history, and a shame he did not participate more in the case. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Izno ( talk) 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Johnpacklambert deletion conduct

5) Johnpacklambert has a history of making many rapid !votes in AfD discussions ( Northamerica100 and Vaulter evidence). His judgement in deciding when to boldly redirect, when to PROD, and when to nominate an article for deletion, especially in regards to articles created by Lugnuts, was criticized in the ANI thread that preceded the opening of this case.

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Support as a factual statement after reviewing JPL's statement on the PD talk. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. I support this as written. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Izno ( talk) 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@ CaptainEek:, @ Donald Albury:, I have BOLDLY removed the last sentence of the FoF given the feedback on the talk page. While it is true that Johnpacklambert's 2022 AfDs have had a substantial intersection with Lugnuts, it's unfair to say that it has been a focus. As this was a BOLD action, either of you should feel free to revert me, though I would then ask that we try to come up with a more accurate phrasing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Lugnuts

6) By one measure, Lugnuts ( talk · contribs) has created the most articles of any editor with over 93 thousand article creations ( S Marshall evidence). Most of these were stubs, and relatively few have been expanded to longer articles ( Cryptic evidence). This led to Lugnuts's autopatrolled right being removed ( April 2021) and to Lugnuts being topic-banned by the community from creating new articles with fewer than 500 words ( Dec 2021). Lugnuts has not offered any substantial help in addressing these content concerns and has sometimes removed a PROD only to vote redirect at a subsequent AfD discussion ( June 2022 ANI BilledMammal evidence). Lugnuts has been blocked for conduct at AfD in March 2022 and April 2022 and was topic banned by the community from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page in February 2022.

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Noting that proposed Remedy 5 warns Lugnuts against making personal attacks, [and] engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, neither of which is discussed in this FOF. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Again, a concerning history. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. I also support the wording change suggested below. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. With support for the wording change. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Izno ( talk) 03:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Based on comments elsewhere on this PD and on the talk page I propose changing the last sentence to

Lugnuts was topic banned by the community from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page in February 2022. He has been blocked for conduct personal attacks at AfD in March 2022 and April 2022 and has a history of battleground behavior concerns being brought to noticeboards ( FOARP evidence).

Thoughts? Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'd support that change, and it would be sufficient for me to support Remedy 5 too. Worm^TT( talk) 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I would also support this change. -- Izno ( talk) 03:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

TenPoundHammer

7) TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs) was topic banned from all deletion activities in January 2018, which was repealed in October 2019. Concerns over TenPoundHammer's ability to close deletion discussions led to a community topic ban in June 2022. He has regularly nominated pages for deletion, using both PROD and Articles for deletion, and participated in many other AfD discussions ( June 2022 ANI, S Marshall evidence). TenPoundHammer engaged in disruptive behavior in AfD discussions (e.g. April 2022, May 2022, June 2022) and gave inappropriate notifications during a series of Postage stamp lists ( LaundryPizza03).

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. The conduct in the recent AfDs is particularly egregious given the sanction history. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Previous sanctions do not appear to be making a difference. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Yes, these are true. I would add a comment about the redirecting as in e.g. Artw's evidence, and which I noted below in the remedy proposed for TPH. Izno ( talk) 02:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Mass nominations at Articles for Deletion

8) There is no community consensus on how to handle the consideration of mass nominations of articles at Articles for Deletion. This has created conflict in the community about how to respond to Lugnuts' article creation (e.g. April 2021, Dec 2021, Feb 2022, June 2022) and to changes in sports notability, first with changes to Olympic athletes and later to a change to the general Sports notability guideline (e.g June 2022 ANI, June 2022 Village Pump, Lugnuts preliminary statement, Ingratis preliminary statement, Masem preliminary statement, North8000 preliminary statement).

Support:

1. I would like to see the community put some thought into how to best tackle those "mega-AfDs"/floods of AfD's. Right now I don't think we have a good way to deal with large batches of AfD's, and the case made that particularly apparent. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. I do support this as written, but I think Donald is correct here - that a balance should be found. Mass nomination for deletion is required due to mass creation of problematic articles and a solution needs to be found there too. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. And per Donald below. -- Izno ( talk) 02:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. I will support this, with the proviso that I will also actively support measures to deal with the mass creation of poorly sourced stubs, either as part of this RfC, or in a parallel RfC. - Donald Albury 14:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 11:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. BDD ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I hope any solution adopted by the community for problems created by mass nominations for deletion is balanced by a solution for the problems created by mass creation of poorly sourced stubs. - Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes this is a great point and a goal I share. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion

9) Partly in response to articles nominated for deletion at scale, editors interested in deletion or a particular topic have felt a need to participate in dozens of discussions at a time. This has led to low quality participation, where editors sometimes appeared to not fully research an article topic before leaving a comment, editors would re-use rationale at multiple pages, and editors would leave comments on many deletion discussions in a short period of time ( Northamerica1000 evidence, GiantSnowman evidence). Further, one comparison of AfD in 2017 and 2022 found a similar number of nominations but a smaller number of AfD participants which exacerbates these problems ( Liz evidence). This has left AfD susceptible to spammers and others who sock ( MER-C evidence) and caused administrators to rely on more weighting of comments when closing, including unwritten conventions and personal knowledge of editors, in order to compensate ( JoelleJay evidence, Joe Roe evidence).

Support:

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. As Barkeep said, we spent a lot of time negotiating this wording, and I think the result is good. Prior to and during the case we had a number of editors provide anecdotal evidence regarding the AfD process along with their views on how it affects outcomes for the encyclopedia. These were, in part, related to this case as we saw with the accusations of drive-by comments, battleground conduct related to WP:BEFORE, mass nominations, and use of administrator discretion in closings to mitigate the disruption of named parties. This FoF cites evidence which includes first-person accounts of how editors handled participating in dozens of AfDs at a time, conflict and disruption caused by false assumptions in reaction to those editorial strategies, statistical evidence that the diversity of editors participating has decreased, multiple SPIs where sockpuppetry has been used to exploit that decrease in participation to use Wikipedia for spam, and first-person accounts of how handling this disruption requires individual administrators be in-the-know enough to use proper discretion. Given that evidence, I believe we can find as factual these allegations that problems at AfD are not unique to the named parties but rather intertwined. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. There was a lot to unpack here, but having followed it all through, I don't see anything I disagree with. Worm^TT( talk) 17:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. BDD ( talk) 16:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'm OK with this FoF passing but I'm not relying on it in my remedy votes because I think the other general FoFs are sufficient. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I agree with the thrust of this FOF, but this FOF, or another, desperately needs to acknowledge mass-creation as one of a few causes for mass-nomination. Also, agreed with L235. -- Izno ( talk) 03:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I agree with the general principle - that mass nomination for deletion has led to editors being unable to adequately review each nomination to the best of their abilities, leading to fewer participants due the overwhelming stakes and a generally lower quality of discourse. However, I need to think whether I can support the statement as written. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The drafters spent a lot of time on this one and you can see I haven't supported it yet myself. I'm curious Worm That Turned what your reservations are? For me it has been whether the evidence provided is sufficient to justify what is being asserted. At the moment I'm leaning towards yes - meaning I'll support - but wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts as well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49 from what I've seen, I agree, as I mention above - but the finding is very general in its scope and has a fair amount of points that build up the reasoning. Happily, there's a lot of evidence too, linked in the finding. At present, I'm reviewing all these points and seeing if I come to the same conclusions before I support. Worm^TT( talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Battleground behavior at Articles for Deletion

10) Individual editors may have some inclination to vote delete more, or keep more, in Articles for Deletion discussions and these editors are sometimes labeled as "inclusionists" and "deletionists". Such labels can lead to editors taking sides and otherwise engaging in battleground behavior ( Scottywong evidence, FeydHuxtable evidence, Carrite evidence).

Support:

1. Deletion is not some cosmic battle to the death between inclusionists and deletionists. Any attempt to make it so, or portray it as such, is counterproductive. Deletion discussions should focus on the content, not the contributor. The initial acrimony in this case over those labels was particularly disheartening, and to me is indicative of a wider problem at AfD. People who disagree with you at AfD are not part of some evil plot to destroy Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I have been accused of being a deletionist, when I take pains to treat every discussion I participate in on its own merits and have only the overall quality of the encyclopedia in mind when considering my position. It's not helpful to even think in such terms, let alone to accuse others of being in one of these largely imaginary factions. That being said, there are a small minority of people who do self-identify as being in one of these camps. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. The language used is charged and therefore causing subsequent issues. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. BDD ( talk) 16:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. I think this is a relatively cautious FoF and doesn't say that in this case these labels led to any particular battleground behavior. I therefore support, weakly, as written. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Cabayi ( talk) 07:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I don't believe the FoF is wrong, per se, but I don't believe the evidence sufficiently supports finding it in relation to this case. Factionalism certainly contributes to battleground conduct, but I'm not sure that the conduct of parties to this case was made meaningfully worse because of inclusionist-deltionist labels. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Per Wugapodes. -- Izno ( talk) 03:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

No evidence for larger issues at Articles for Deletion

11) Numerous editors (e.g. Liz evidence, Robert McClenon evidence) suggested there were other issues with conduct at Articles for Deletion. The evidence submitted for this case was insufficient to indicate a broader issue with the topic beyond what has been named in other findings of fact.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I think there is absolutely a bigger problem at AfD. We had mountains of evidence that AfD is chock full of behavioral and procedural problems. After hearing from dozens of editors who say there is a problem, it would be disingenuous of us to ignore that feedback. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I drafted this FoF expecting to vote for it. But the deeper I engaged with the evidence the less I found it to be true. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I agree that there appear to be significant problems at AfD, but I think the community has had problems in articulating those problems in a form that this committee can act on. - Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. The problem I feel like this FoF is trying to articulate is that we accepted a case with a particular scope, and some users attempted to expand the scope outside of what we established when opening the case. That we did not permit that to happen does not mean this case solves every observable behavioral problem in this area. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Per my support of FoF 9. I also share Barkeep's position that, when we first drafted this FoF I expected to support, but my position has changed as I spent more time with the evidence. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Per CaptainEek. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. It's more accurate to say that other issues are outside the scope of this case – possibly even outside of Arbcom remit altogether. -- BDD ( talk) 16:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I believe the intention behind this is supportable — exempting us from a Russell's teapot situation in which we cannot state that problems do not exist when we do not have evidence for them — but Beeblebrox makes a valid point that we specifically kept the scope of this case narrow, meaning any potential evidence was not presented in the first place. In other words, I support the idea of this proposal, but with enough caveats to not explicitly do so. Primefac ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Per comment below. -- Izno ( talk) 03:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I think the point we should be trying to make is that we are unable to deal with community level problems, as something wider needs to be looked at. In other words, its' outside this case scope and our wider jurisdiction. Worm^TT( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not think opposing this FOF is sufficient to indicate support for the 'general' remedies proposed below. Supporters should consider drafting an FOF which directly supports that remedy. -- Izno ( talk) 02:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

7&6=thirteen warned

1) 7&6=thirteen ( talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior. If 7&6=thirteen should engage in disruptive behavior related to deletion, broadly construed, an uninvolved administrator may block him (in accordance with the standard enforcement provision) or impose on him a topic ban for up to one year.

Support:

1. At a minimum. Note for vote counting: if I end up voting for other remedies about 7&6=thirteen, this would be in addition to those. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. BDD ( talk) 20:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. At a minimum. I will also note that I much prefer these "warnings with teeth" to our more traditional warnings. I expect we'll be using them much more going forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. In addition to 2, instead of 3. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Insufficient. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer remedy 2. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Insufficient. -- Izno ( talk) 03:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. A final warning was already issued. It didn't work. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I think this is insufficient, but it is better than nothing. Primefac ( talk) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer remedy 2. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I'd like to see a separate warning for general incivility. This warning includes PAs but it's unclear whether that's a general warning for PAs or one specific to PAs in deletion-related discussions, and reviewing the evidence indicates issues which are not simply personal attacks in the area of civility. -- Izno ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I think I'd be on board with that. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Why do you prefer it's separate? I'd suggest tacking on a clause instead (which I'd support). Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Right now the enforcement part of this remedy is specific to issues in the context of deletion. I would have no issue adding a sentence or some other part to this remedy, but that would also require supporting this remedy... :) Izno Public ( talk) 01:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

7&6=thirteen topic banned

2) 7&6=thirteen ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. At minimum. I am also considering proposing a site ban Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. For many of the same reasons Worm supports the complete ban below I find myself supporting this more limited topic ban. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Donald Albury 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Per WTT's site ban rationale. — Wug· a·po·des​ 17:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. As mentioned above, this is the bare minimum we should be doing. Primefac ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. -- Izno ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Cabayi ( talk) 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. It's very close, but for me, this user's conduct does not quite rise to this level. Regardless of the outcome, I hope they will take this as a major wakeup call. If ArbCom has a site ban for you on the table, there needs to be a change. -- BDD ( talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

7&6=thirteen banned

3) 7&6=thirteen ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This block may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. I believe that the significant number of ANI threads, the warnings that 7&6=thirteen have received as part of them and the continued behaviour, especially at recent AfDs are sufficient that a ban is required. Worm^TT( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. While I respect Worm, and any other, who feel like there is enough of a longstanding issue to merit a ban, I'm don't think recent actions are to the level of justifying such a ban and as such think a lesser remedy currently appropriate. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   I would like to note the word of caution that I wrote about for 7&6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

2. Excessive. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. BDD ( talk) 20:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. I echo Barkeep: it is hard to feel that 7&6 has done enough to warrant our most severe sanction. I think the issues of the editors here have been in some ways inextricably linked with the deeper problems at AfD: if AfD worked right, perhaps we would not be here. But by that same token, I hope 7&6 does not prove me wrong. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Weakly. In the event of any new issues in the next 12-24 months or so, I would entertain an ARCA request to siteban Thirteen. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Excessive at this time. -- Izno ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Remedy 2 is sufficient at this time. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, while echoing BDD's comment on the previous remedy, "If ArbCom has a site ban for you on the table, there needs to be a change." Cabayi ( talk) 07:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Not opposed, per se, but I'd prefer to see how the topic ban works out first. I agree with WTT that a line needs to be drawn (in fact, months ago, we drew that line with a "final" warning), but a site ban seems too crude a tool; I'd prefer something more light weight at this point. So not really opposed, but I think we have better options on the table. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Wugapodes puts it best: this is probably the right call, but a topic ban might solve the major issues. Primefac ( talk) 08:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I've been pondering these four users for the past day or so, and will expand my thinking on each in turn. I'm not a "ban them all" type of person, I really do prefer to see the good and work out solutions. However, these four individuals all have long history's of community sanctions, large numbers of threads at noticeboards and I believe each has surpassed my personal line of excessive disruption that should lead to banning. Worm^TT( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm still mulling this one over, although currently it looks unlikely to pass. While I agree that their behavior has been chronically disruptive, I'm not seeing the appalling block log some other parties have. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Johnpacklambert topic banned

4) Johnpacklambert ( talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. At a minimum. Considering site ban in addition. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. second choice. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. This is the minimum possible sanction I can support. I am still considering the site ban. If I support a site ban, it would be in addition to this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. BDD ( talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. As I have decided to not support a site ban for Lugnuts, I will not do so here. - Donald Albury 18:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. At minimum — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. As mentioned above, this is the bare minimum we should be doing. Primefac ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Even taking into account PD talk (and especially Spartaz's comment), I think the FOFs make clear that JPL should not be engaging in this area. -- Izno ( talk) 03:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
12. Similarly to my notes in another remedy, I would be open to hearing appeals relatively more soon. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
13. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Copyedited prior to any arb votes. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Johnpacklambert banned

5) Johnpacklambert ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This block may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. First choice. Looking at the evidence, the block log, and all the previous attempts at resolving these issues through discussion, I simply don't see an option more likely to be of overall benefit to the community. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I have seen statements regarding Johnpacklambert and how he has been provoked, as well as regarding his autism, both of which have left me with a while considering this particular case. However, I am afraid that Mr. Lambert has gone over the line so many times and despite repeated warning and sanctions, has not stopped doing so. Sometimes the Arbitration Committee has to draw the final line. Worm^TT( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Per #Repeated behavior and the 5-year history in #Johnpacklambert sanction history. I agree with my colleagues in the oppose that the cited behavior, on its own, would not be sufficient to support a site ban, but taken in the larger context of repeated behavior and previous failed sanctions (including other topic bans), an increasingly sever sanction[] is warranted. Until Johnpacklambert can convince us that he can contribute productively, we should not take up the community's time by asking them to (once again) monitor and discipline this editor. Preventing disruption and respect for the community's time is, in my mind, why we sometimes impose severe sanctions for repeated behavior even when the behavior is not, on its own, particularly egregious. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. While I don't think the proposal is unreasonable, at this point, I think it would be an excessive step. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I expect and hope the topic ban will be sufficient. -- BDD ( talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose but with a strong degree of uncertainty and caution, that I wrote about here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. I echo Barkeep: it is hard to feel that Johnpacklambert has done enough to warrant our most severe sanction. I think the issues of the editors here have been in some ways inextricably linked with the deeper problems at AfD: if AfD worked right, perhaps we would not be here. But by that same token, I hope Johnpacklambert does not prove me wrong. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Johnpacklambert's conduct, even considering the sanction history, does not rise to the level of a siteban. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Insufficient evidence to support a site ban, but JPL is on very thin ice for having a topic ban outside of deletion areas. -- Izno ( talk) 03:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. I find myself very weakly opposing this remedy. In looking at the evidence provided, the sanctions against Johnpacklambert have almost all been related to their conduct in deletion-adjacent areas. We are imposing stricter sanctions on those areas with Remedy 4, meaning that future transgressions will result in increasing sanctions anyway up to and including an indefinite block. Outwith the areas in which they are already topic banned, there does not appear to be enough evidence to indicate that there is a fundamental problem with Johnpacklambert's editing or their ability to be a net positive to this project. I might be wrong, but to paraphrase something Barkeep49 said elsewhere, I would rather be wrong-and-too-lenient, which allows for easy correction, than too harsh. That being said, I suspect that Johnpacklambert will be on a very short leash for the foreseeable future. Primefac ( talk) 09:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Struck an incorrect part of my statement. Primefac ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Remedy 4 sufficient. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I am inclined at this time to oppose a siteban for JPL. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I've not quite decided where I stand on this but for me #Repeated_behavior is top of mind. Johnpacklambert's block log is long and the number of times he's been allowed to learn or promise to do better when blocked is well beyond what many others would be allowed to do. Then on top of it we have two unrelated editing restrictions (one around deletion, one with religion). I think we're clearly in increasingly severe sanctions territory and for me that's just a matter of whether it's the topic ban above (which would expand one of his existing topic bans) or it's this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree that repeated behavior seems to be the crux of both currently proposed sitebans as it almost always is. Both of these users have had numerous second chances over the course of more than a decade, both already have multiple sanctions listed at WP:RESTRICT, both have been the subject of numerous prolonged discussions to try and resolve issues with their behavior, and here we are still discussing their problematic behavior. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Lugnuts warned

6) Lugnuts ( talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior. If Lugnuts should engage in disruptive behavior related to deletion, broadly construed, an uninvolved administrator may block him (in accordance with the standard enforcement provision) or impose on him a topic ban for up to one year.

Support:

1. At a minimum. Note for vote counting: if I end up voting for other remedies about Lugnuts, this would be in addition to those. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. BDD ( talk) 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Donald Albury 17:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. At minimum. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Like Barkeep49, should I end up voting in favour of Lugnuts-related remedies this would be in addition to those preferences. Primefac ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. In addition to any other Lugnuts remedies. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. In addition to remedy 6.1 - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Cabayi ( talk) 07:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Just at a glance, I'm seeing five blocks for personal attacks/incivility. Surely the warning has already been given at that point. -- Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Insufficient, and with the same concern as for 13 regarding an entirely separate warning for civility. -- Izno ( talk) 04:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

There's currently no FOF that supports the "personal attacks" and "battleground behavior in deletion discussions" warning. Should there be one? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree. I'm also wondering about proposing some sort of throttle to article creation Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Is the issue for you two the lack of wording to support this or the lack of evidence? I would suggest there's evidence in the FoF now to support it, but there was more evidence submitted along these lines that we could add if that's the issue. On the other hand if it's just the lack of wording that could be added as well. Just want to understand where you think it's falling short. As for a throttle, the 500 words minimum from the community topic ban is already a throttle of sorts which is why I didn't suggest a further throttle. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I've had it pointed out to me that Lugnuts has created a total of 10 articles since the community sanction was put in place (and at least three peer-reviewed for DYK), I think that's reasonable, so no need for any more throttling there. I'm still going back over evidence, but my concern is specifically about the wording in the FoF, which should be backed by evidence (I'm not saying it's not there) - at present I beleive those two points should be specifically called out in the FoF, or an additional FoF. Worm^TT( talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I believe the second sentence of this remedy transforms it into a "probation" remedy, which I think I'm OK with. On a nitpicking point, this remedy includes enforcement provisions that I think are more properly handled in the "Enforcement" section. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I would support this remedy with the second sentence replaced with the following: If Lugnuts should, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, engage in disruptive behavior related to deletion, broadly construed, an uninvolved administrator may block him (in accordance with the standard enforcement provision) or impose on him a topic ban for up to one year. I believe this would be consistent with the intent of the drafting and align with the remedy/enforcement separation. (cc: @ Barkeep49, Maxim, BDD, and CaptainEek: Is this acceptable or should I propose a separate remedy?) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

(It would also be fine with me to remove "in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator" in this proposed text, because that's implied by the rest of the sentence and makes it more complex.) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ L235 I think your wording is more confusing in order to achieve some point of specificity whose benefit is elusive to me. But I'm not going to get hung up either way. You'd also need to change the wording in every other warning remedy as it was deliberately constructed the same way. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree re: the changes to the other remedies. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ L235 Not sure what that achieves but I'm fine with it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Fine with me too. -- BDD ( talk) 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I have struggled with this. I was strongly tempted to vote for a ban, but that was likely influenced by how much I dislike the mass creation of poorly sourced stubs. While I consdier such mass creation of stubs to be a major contributor to the problems at AfD, I saw that as peripheral to the way this case was framed. I also had to allow for the effects of the restrictions on article creation that now apply to Lugnuts, so I have reluctantly supported this warning, with the hope that I will not be disappointed by the consequences. - Donald Albury 17:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Lugnuts topic banned

6.1) Lugnuts ( talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles. This remedy supersedes his December 2021 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. At a minimum. Izno ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Donald Albury 12:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I find myself weakly here because I think 3 is the most important element and it's already in effect. If we're going to pass additional restrictions on top of it we should definitely take it over from the community but the evidence for 1 & 2 is not nearly as compelling. But it is sufficient to justify the clauses so here I am. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. BDD ( talk) 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Minimum. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. I'm not super sure this properly addresses the issues presented in evidence – many of them did not center on deletion. But I don't oppose this remedy either. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. I do not think this is sufficient, but if this is all we're going to do I support it as a second choice to remedy 7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. I don't oppose these restrictions, but I believe they are insufficient. Worm^TT( talk) 08:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 08:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Maxim_(talk) 12:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed. I haven't decided whether a full ban is appropriate quite yet, but I do not think Lugnuts should take only a warning out of this case in the event a site ban remedy fails. I probably won't be able to shepherd this remedy either over the weekend. Accordingly, any other member may edit this proposed remedy after reasonable discussion so long as the general gist remains without consulting me. -- Izno ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Made a minor copyedit to reduce nested statements without changing the meaning. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Lugnuts article restrictions

6.2) In the mainspace, Lugnuts is restricted to making edits to pages which he has created or previously substantially contributed to. As an exception to any deletion topic ban, Lugnuts may nominate any such articles for deletion at WP:AFD. He may not participate in that discussion beyond the single edit nominating the article for deletion.

Support:

1. At a minimum, in addition to 6.1. Izno ( talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. So I've given this a lot of thought and while I still prefer 7 to this set of restrictions, I think this regime is an acceptable compromise. While we cannot force actions, we can restrict available options to the point of an ultimatum; here we give Lugnuts two choices: clean-up or leave. If the former, the encyclopedia is improved, if the latter we get the functional equivalent of 7. I'm content with either of those outcomes. The main trade-off which I brought up in my comment is the potential investment of community time. While that's not a trivial concern, there are ways to mitigate the bureaucratic overhead. The sanctions, as written, are relatively clear (save "substantially contributed to") and compliance can be easily checked, perhaps even programmatically. I'm not good with SQL, but presumably a quarry could be drafted which checked for edits by Lugnuts to pages he did not create after a given date. This would relieve the issue of scale that I brought up as the quarry result should be empty, or at least small enough to be checked by hand. I think this is worth trying, and if the community finds it unworkable, then we can amend it on request. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I am not a fan of bespoke remedies like this, they tend to create more problems than they resolve. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I do have the VOLUNTEER concerns, and think this does Lugnuts a disservice by creating a damned-if-you-do situation, whereby their positive contributions won't be as valued because they'll be seen as forced by ArbCom. -- BDD ( talk) 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I like the second sentence but I don't think the first sentence is really workable unless it's something that Lugnuts themselves propose in lieu of a siteban. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   I think by "workable" here I don't mean "technically workable" (I think Wugapodes' quarry idea is great) but rather "will achieve what we want". It'd be one thing if Lugnuts said, I want to work on cleaning up my creations and will accept that I won't contribute to other articles for a few years. I don't think that's what I'm hearing and therefore think we should either decide on less harsh restrictions or on a full siteban, which I am still inclined to support. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

4. Per Beebs, BDD, and my concerns expressed below that it would actually lead to less fixing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. I'm not sure I like the idea of that mainspace restriction, as much as I'd like him to do that. Worm^TT( talk) 08:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Per Beeblebrox. Primefac ( talk) 11:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
7. Per Beeblebrox. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
8. I don't believe that Lugnuts is incapable of improving articles created by other users which is implied by this remedy. If it were true a siteban would be in order. Cabayi ( talk) 08:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I do not agree regarding Wugs' comment below that VOLUNTEER is relevant. Lugnuts has shown a willingness to work on making larger pages than he used to, and ~90k articles is not a small set of pages that he can work on. So, this is a sketch of a remedy that is the last step before a site ban that another committee member can take and run with, if the committee decides not to issue a site ban (or even in addition to a site ban). As with 6.1, I cannot shepherd this one, so same rules apply. -- Izno ( talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

My point is that, even with this baroque system of restrictions, we cannot force Lugnuts to do anything. If the desire is to have Lugnuts (or anyone) do something--take a specific action--we simply cannot compel that. It's not a philosophical point, it's the material reality of the tools we have available to us. We cannot force actions, we can only prevent actions. This remedy attempts to get around that fundamental limitation by creating a system where Lugnuts has two options: do what we want or do nothing. If he chooses the former then we (and the community) need to maintain a relatively complex system of restrictions and spend time ensuring that of the hundreds of edits per day he makes (for example, in the last 10 hours he's made over 500 edits), that none are violations; if he chooses the latter then we get nothing and have no way of compelling action.

Fundamentally, we are creating a bespoke restriction requiring a non-trivial amount of bureaucratic overhead in the hopes that Lugnuts is personally compelled to fulfill a moral obligation to us. I'm not against that--I genuinely do not enjoy supporting blocks or bans--but we should be clear about the trade-offs. The community has already spent hundreds of person-hours attempting to craft appropriate restrictions over the past few years, and yet we are still here. Placing an additional surveillance and reporting burden on them (or us) is not trivial and should be weighed against the potential risks and benefits of the proposed regime.

These are the points I'm mulling over in my head before deciding on 6.1 and 6.2, but while I'm suspicious of the trade-offs, I'm open to solutions stronger than 6 but less severe than 7. I'd be interested in other thoughts in the meantime. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes, thanks for clarifying your point. I agree that he cannot be compelled to participate on English Wikipedia.

I do not really know of a good way to keep watch on him, so that seems like a reasonable concern. OTOH, any topic ban requires minimal monitoring as well. Izno Public ( talk) 02:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

If I was limited to one thing in mainspace, even a thing I liked, I'd probably just get bored and stop editing mainsapce and/or Wikipedia. So I am not sure if this gets us more of the desired outcome than doing nothing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

In such a scenario as a Barkeep main space restriction, choosing not to continue editing would be your choice. In contrast, the site ban would not be. Izno Public ( talk) 02:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

True it would be my choice. But it would be Wikipedia's loss of my time. In the case of a ban the decision would be that was a trade-off willingly made but a topic ban presumes that's not the best case scenario. To bring it back to this case, I'm suggesting that if we want him to fix articles - and I think we both do - giving him some ability to mix things up to maintain interest may cause for more fixing than a remedy which says "all you can do is fix". Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I think with over 90k pages to work on, I don't feel particularly guilty about mandating "fix, only" or particularly worried about a lack of motivation. But sure, a reasonable point. Izno Public ( talk) 02:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Drafting note, we should not refer to a specific remedy like that because who knows if 6.1 will pass at all or of it the version that passes will be 6.1a or 6.3. I'd phrase it as "As an exception to any deletion topic ban, Lugnuts may..." Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Done. Izno Public ( talk) 02:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ L235: You may be interested in this post on my talk page from Lugnuts which might be closer to what you'd like to see. This is mitigated by Cryptic's comment on the talk page, but I wanted to make sure we're working off the same information in case you aren't pouring over my user talk. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks Wugapodes – Lugnuts did indeed write me a message with similar effect. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Lugnuts banned

7) Lugnuts ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. Looking at the evidence, the block log, and all the previous attempts at resolving these issues through discussion, I simply don't see an option more likely to be of overall benefit to the community. (I do agree there is a moral obligation to help clean up the mess, but I'm not convinced that would actually happen, and we have to consider the overall benefit to the project.) Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I am pleased that the level of articles created by Lugnuts did reduce significantly, and so the mass creation issue was not longer one. However, I also see no likelihood that Lugnuts would help tidy up the articles he created. I also see a significant number of situations where Lugnuts instigated the problems, lots of sanctions that are ongoing and simply, I believe the line must be drawn. Worm^TT( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I remain deeply unthrilled about Lugnuts' mass stubs. Perusing a wide sampling, I am utterly disappointed in the quality and effort that went into them. I believe that those stubs have only served to reinforce public opinion that Wikipedia is mostly empty around the edges, and that anything is notable. I unfortunately do not share Barkeep's hope that Lugnuts will fix the problem he created. Now, to Lugnuts' credit, the community banned him from making more stubs. Lugnuts' contributions have improved since then, if marginally. But Lugnuts' confrontational approach has not changed. He picked up two blocks, and a topic ban in just the four months after his stub making ban. I spent a long time considering this, and thought I might just abstain. But at some point, enough is enough. So with a heavy heart, I think it is time to ban Lugnuts, lest he remain an WP:UNBLOCKABLE that the community must carry like an anchor until the bottom finally drops out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Per #Repeated behavior, the recent sanctions in #Lugnuts, and independent notice of Lugnuts' block log. While I agree Lugnuts has a moral obligation to clean up his mess, we have no way to enforce such an obligation per WP:VOLUNTEER. Further, I am deeply suspicious that allowing him to help would make the process any easier for the community. If Lugnuts wishes to help and can offer a specific plan with measurable objectives, it can be offered and evaluated in an unban request. I would prefer that over just warning him and hoping he comes up with one. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. I prefer a 6 month appeal window. This was a tough vote to come to and I think it boils down to there being so many prior second, third, fourth opportunities to avoid this (FOARP's evidence) and no lesser remedy would be sufficient. I think the signature incidents encapsulate the reasoning for this ban. Fixing their signature to prevent future linter errors would've taken Lugnuts about 15 seconds of work. They were repeatedly asked to do so by a number of editors who even provided exact instructions on what to copy-paste where. They repeatedly failed to do so over the course of nearly a year, finally acquiescing on 15 June, after this case was opened [1] [2] [3] [4]. And despite being banned by the community from making cosmetic edits, they edit-warred cosmetic edits (while making jeering remarks) to restore the old signature (S Marshall's evidence). Somehow, despite the community sanction and a recent warning that a next offense would be "straight to indef" [5], Lugnuts was not in fact indeffed after this. There's a baseline of collaborative behavior that's necessary from folks who want to work on a collaborative project and its absence was ugly here. The sanction history here shows that ordinary processes have failed to stem the disruption and the issues would not be suitably addressed by a topic ban from deletion. I value Lugnuts as a person and as contributor and genuinely hope that I see them back on Wikipedia after a successful appeal if this remedy passes. But now's the time to act. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   In light of recent events I would encourage the community to establish a process by which contributions by Lugnuts might be reviewed and, if needed, speedily reverted or deleted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

6. L235 has stated it well, and I cannot think of anything additional to add to his statement. Primefac ( talk) 11:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
7. [6]. I don't think further explanation is needed. Izno ( talk) 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
8. This suggests that the problems were even larger than we had known and should be considered for any future appeal. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
9. The latest edits show an intent to ignore & mock the community's concerns. Cabayi ( talk) 13:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I believe Lugnuts has some moral obligation to help address the articles created that are out of line with community policies and guidelines. Banning him would stop that from happening. I also think the incivility at AfD is bad and I especially dislike his removing PRODs only to admit that redirection is an appropriate option when they're then brought to AfD. If this pattern had been going on for longer I would be supporting this sanction because it's not only failing to help with fulfill the moral obligation, it's actively hindering those who are doing the work. The best justification in my mind for this is as a sort of "cumulative sanction" for the reasons that #Repeated_behavior mentions and I just don't find that argument compelling enough, especially given the notes about his far more productive recent article creation work. But further disruption, especially of the kind shown with the PROD, could very well push me over to a different vote if this were brought before us again. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I am affirming this opposition, but do take seriously, as I am hoping Lugnuts will the the thinking offered by Spartaz. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

1. I don't think that the overall behaviour rises to the level of a site ban. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Per Barkeep. -- BDD ( talk) 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I cannot in good faith bring myself to oppose this remedy (thank you Spartaz, you deserve recognition), but I have attempted to sketch out remedies (6.1 and 6.2) above which I think satisfy my desire to remove the primary source of disruption. Those remedies are a LASTCHANCE for me, and if in 6 months we have an ARCA on our desk about the edges of the restrictions, I am not willing to provide further leniency. -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

1. This was the ban I was closest to supporting, but I have held back because I was not sure of my motivation for doing so. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
2. While I can well imagine I’d be very upset in their shoes, Lugnuts’s actions on the way out have prompted me to strike my oppose. Very unfortunate. -- BDD ( talk) 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Considering. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I think I am somewhat inclined to support at this time. I certainly don't think the "moral obligation to help" is a mitigating factor for a siteban. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I've never seen anyone create a giant mess and then actually help undo it here. They usually just leave rather than help out. The only way I could see to enforce helping out would be the sort of bespoke sanctions that we, thankfully, don't really do anymore. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I will leave a comment on this one in the morning. -- Izno ( talk) 04:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

TenPoundHammer warned

8) TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs) is warned against disruptive behavior in deletion discussions. If TenPoundHammer should engage in disruptive behavior related to deletion, broadly construed, an uninvolved administrator may block him (in accordance with the standard enforcement provision) or impose on him a topic ban for up to one year.

Support:

1. Note for vote counting: if I end up voting for other remedies about TenPoundHammer, this would be in addition to those. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. In addition to a topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. At minimum — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice to the topic bans. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. Not needed with remedy 9.1 in place. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Insufficient. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Insufficient. A decade or more of issues with relation to article deletion. -- Izno ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I think this is insufficient, but it is better than nothing. Primefac ( talk) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

9.1) TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. Also, again considering proposing site ban. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. With TPH acknowledging this as an appropriate remedy, I'm finding it hard to find a reason to not support this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   I'll note that this vote happened in between these edits. It does change my thinking some, but for now I am leaving this vote. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   And now it's back so my original reasoning once again applies. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

3. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. TPH has a problem with deletions, as evidenced by the previous topic ban, which was lifted to give a second chance. Well, that second chance has been squandered, and the topic ban should return. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. In addition to 8 — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. As mentioned above, this is the bare minimum we should be doing. Primefac ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Donald Albury 20:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. First choice, and my interpretation is that this should extend to PROD, given the evidence, even though it seems like a stretch to call most PRODs a discussion. I would favor making this explicit in the remedy but hesitate to add it unilaterally when so many others have voted. I hope we'd take a dim view of TPH going PROD-crazy even under the current language. -- BDD ( talk) 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
10. First choice, extend to PROD. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Cabayi ( talk) 08:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I would be able to support this if it were limited to article deletion discussions. TPH's involvement with our deletion processes outside of those dealing with mainspace is ordinary in comparison to most other users and no/little significant evidence was submitted contrary to that understanding that I am aware of. This TBAN also fails to remedy the issues that appear to be evident with the use of redirects (see Artw's evidence for examples). -- Izno ( talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

TenPoundHammer topic banned (2)

9.2) TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from article deletion discussions, the use of WP:CSD for articles, and from redirecting articles, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. This is what the evidence indicates is necessary to stop the disruption per my oppose in 8.1. I am willing to wordsmith/negotiate some parts of the proposed remedy. -- Izno ( talk) 20:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice to 9.1, in addition to 10. Worm^TT( talk) 08:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Equal first choice to 9.1 – I don't really have a preference. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Weak second choice. I appreciate the attempt at a more tailored sanction (this should also include PROD, per my comments above and below), but do share the concerns of Wugapodes that in doing so we've created more ambiguity. -- BDD ( talk) 15:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I think (1) is a better version. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 9.1. Disengagement from deletion discussions in general makes more sense to me than only disengaging from AfD, but this alternate remedy is by no means unreasonable. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Since this is TPH's second topic ban on point, I am unwilling to provide a carve out in the hopes they'll do better. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Given the discussion below, I'm simply concerned about potential ambiguity leading to further disruption. While I appreciate the attempt at a more targeted remedy, I'd prefer this be a potential, future relaxation of the ban instead of where we start off. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. I think we need broad strokes here. Primefac ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer remedy 9.1. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

To clarify, Izno, this would forbid TPH from redirecting articles but would allow participation at RfD, and this is a narrower sanction? And more of a general question: is the absence of PROD both here and in 9.1 intentional? -- BDD ( talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Presumably it would allow him to participate at RfD but only if the discussion wasn't about deletion (and similarly for templates and categories). Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

No, not similar for templates and categories. The word article is inserted on purpose here relative to the other topic ban.

I do not think I consider RFD as inside the scope of article deletion discussions, so I'm willing to make that add that if you are interested.

Missing PROD was not intentional on my part but that also can be added. I do not know about the drafters' choice in 9.1. Izno ( talk) 02:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

TenPoundHammer banned

10) TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This block may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. TenPoundHammer has been a user who has been sanctioned multiple times for the same thing. As issues are still ongoing, it is time to draw a line under them. Worm^TT( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Per #Repeated behavior and the 4-year history in #TenPoundHammer. A topic ban from deletion was explicitly tried, repealed for good behavior, and the problems returned. Per my comments in other site ban proposals, we are quite clearly justified in imposing an increasingly severe sanction[], and with a previous topic ban already having failed to stop disruption in this area, this seems the obvious next step. — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Excessive. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose but with a strong degree of uncertainty and caution, that I wrote about here and in in the comments section below. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I think the problem here is limited to deletion, as evidenced by the previous topic ban, which was lifted to give a second chance. Well, that second chance has been squandered, and the topic ban should return. But I don't think a total ban is appropriate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Insufficient evidence presented to justify a siteban. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. BDD ( talk) 15:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Per my comments at #Johnpacklambert banned; the disruption is largely limited to one area; whether TenPoundHammer can demonstrate collaborative editing in other venues is up to them now. Primefac ( talk) 11:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. -- Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Soince I held back on banning Lugnuts, I'm not supporting any ban. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

• The fact that TenPoundHammer was blocked twice for personal attacks/harassment during the time he was topic banned for deletion is perintent in my consideration of this site ban. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Request for Comment

11) The Arbitration Committee requests comment on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.

• The request for comment (RfC) will take place at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale and the discussion will be moderated by editor(s) appointed by the Arbitration Committee.
• The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented.
• The moderator(s) will also be responsible for supervising the discussions, and ensuring comments remain relevant and focused. To maintain decorum, moderator(s) may collapse comments, move comments to the talk page, remove comments entirely, ban editors from the process, or take other reasonable actions necessary to maintain decorum.
• The RfC will be announced at the articles for deletion talk page, the Arbitration Noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village pump (policy). Comments will be accepted for 30 days, and the request for comment will be advertised on the centralized discussion template.
• The request for comment will be closed by a panel of three editors with experience closing discussions and who will be appointed by the Arbitration Committee prior to the start of the RfC. The closing panel should summarize the main points brought up in the discussion and evaluate what consensus, if any, exists within the community.
• Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Support:

1. There are deeper structural problems at AfD. ArbCom cannot fix those, since such reform is beyond our remit. However, we can kickstart the discussion, as we have done in the past with the WP:GMORFC. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 03:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I will reluctantly support this, with the hope that the community will simultaneously deal with the mass creation of stub articles, which is, in my opinion, a primary cause of mass nominations at AFD. - Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I had abandoned this concept both because of my then support for FoF 11 and because of the negative feedback offered for the version I suggested at the workshop; not only for the structure (which was designed to get pushback) but for the concept. As it became clear that the evidence suggested a wider problem than these four editors, the only options I saw on the table were some sort of reminder (to which I was a big no; see reasoning in comment below), an RfC, and DS. I wasn't sure how DS could be made workable and I still don't think evidence supported going that far. That left the RfC. I think the version posted here takes seriously some of the structure feedback offered about the version I posted at the workshop.
   There are, I'm sure, still concerns about the appropriateness of this at all - why not leave it to the community? To which I would say that we're doing it because it's part of the process of addressing the in-scope issue before us. In the same way we delegate part of our authority to admin to do DS, we're delegating part of our authority to the RfC to address the problem the community hasn't been able to solve on their own. Which again is core of why this is necessary - the community didn't do it and can't do it because they haven't been able to for reasons documented in the FoF but with this structure maybe it will be able to successfully address the topic. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. More complete comments to follow. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   I'd like this RfC to also encompass mass creations. I assume that the appointed moderator has the discretion to frame questions relating to all the issues raised here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

   That would also be my expectation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

5. Per Barkeep, specifically: In the same way we delegate part of our authority to admin to do DS, we're delegating part of our authority to the RfC to address the problem the community hasn't been able to solve on their own. Over the past month we have solicited feedback from dozens of editors engaged in this process, and in doing so identified problems that the community would like help resolving. I believe we can, and should, do more to help resolve community issues than just handing out warnings, bans, and sanction regimes. I believe "improve policy" should be a valid outcome when we find that a lack of policy has led to widespread disruption. By requesting comment, we initiate the process and then hand it over to the community to finish. This avoids the situation where we identify a problem, hope someone does something eventually, and then nothing happens. This kind of remedy should be used sparingly, but I think it is an opportunity to expand our toolbox beyond restrictions and punishments. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
7. I think the worst that could happen here is an inconclusive result, which is not that bad. -- BDD ( talk) 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
8. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 08:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I think I oppose this as I would like to see the community take a stab at resolving these issues before adding our involvement, which often carries significant damping on the normal course of editing (particularly, review the final bullet regarding appeals). -- Izno ( talk) 20:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. I know that we did something similar a few years ago, but we were at a point where the community was breaking, and at the centre was a disconnect between private/public information - an area which we on Arbcom were clearly in the middle of. However, using a similar structure for AfD is overstepping the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, in my opinion - it comes too close to the content. As such, I cannot support an RfC which is so linked to the committee. I certainly hope that the community does create their own RfC. Worm^TT( talk) 17:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I will consider this further. I generally do not like Arbcom mandated RfCs, though this is an area that may well need it Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Worm That Turned: I understand your perspective but would ask that you consider: There have been a number of RfCs under ArbCom's authority over the years that have had much more direct content applications than this one. Those include directly ArbCom-mandated RfCs like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem (directly setting the opening paragraph of Jerusalem with no changes allowed for three years) as well as ones held under DS like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms (setting as fixed descriptions of scientific consensus on GMOs on a dozen articles). Those RfCs directly established text on articles; this RfC's content effects would be much more indirect. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I am all for RfCs and I would love the community hold one on AfDs at scale, and indeed on the wider topic of AfD, given some of the other evidence we've had during this case. However, there's a difference between recommending an RfC and mandating an RfC - and honestly, I don't like Arbcom doing either. Looking at some history:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms was under DS from Arbcom, but there is no mention of the RfC in the final decision.
• Jerusalem's RfC was in lieu of a case and is probably the closest in similarity to this one, a decade ago. But even there - there's a big difference between The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant. from that motion and The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented. from this one. Hence my comment about being too close to the content.
• Then there is the fact that RfCs "recommended" by Arbcom don't seem to happen. (cf Portals, Infobox, BLPTALK) which pushes me to believe that the community as a whole doesn't actually want these RfCs that we in the committee think are a good idea.

If push comes to shove, I'd rather we recommend an RfC, than force one. Worm^TT( talk) 09:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Community encouraged

12) Because AfD discussions can devolve into unhealthy discussion, with editors engaging in bludgeoning, battleground behavior, and other disruptive behavior, administrators are encouraged and empowered to enforce behavioral policies and guidelines in AfD discussions, and the community is reminded that it has options to enforce behavioral policies and guidelines at places like AN and ANI.

Support:

1. I would like to see stronger enforcement of behavioral norms at AfD, which I hope lead to more robust participation and less acrimony. I want admins to feel empowered, and know that ArbCom has their back when it comes to making hard decisions at AfD. Now, we drafters have stopped short of proposing DS in this area, since we felt the bureaucratic weight would be stifling in an area that is already short of contributors. But if we have to hear another deletion case, the Committee may well consider DS. So take this remedy as both an encouragement, and a warning that Only YOU can prevent DS! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Per Eek. Statements alone can matter. If we pass this, we are encouraging and empowering administrators to enforce these guidelines because it's coming from us; I think this is a worthy goal. -- BDD ( talk) 16:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Per above. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Eek's point is well taken, Discretionary sanctions do have the possibility of stifling participation in an area already suffering from that problem. However, I agree with Barkeep, in keeping with my previous comments that remedies like this don't accomplish anything and we shouldn't be doing them. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. ::"Enouraged and empowered"? Empowered how? I'm afraid I cannot support this, despite the point being well taken. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. I think this is a somewhat premature remedy more than anything. Does the greater community want more administrative use of tools for misbehavior at AFD? That would be something to evaluate at either the remedy RFC proposed above or a community discussion on the topic. The evidence I see doesn't indicate so (in fact, see Joe's opining on resiliency). -- Izno ( talk) 20:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Per Barkeep49 in the abstain column below. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
5. I agree with Izno that this would be better explored in the RfC where, among other things, the community can evaluate how best to make this actionable (which is really my main concern). — Wug· a·po·des​ 18:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
6. Per the others in this section. Primefac ( talk) 11:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I think community encouragements aren't worth the bytes that they take to load and so I'm inclined to oppose a remedy that doesn't actually do anything and is thus not remedying anything. That said the administrator encouragement is something I agree with and because it would likely get included in the admin newsletter, does have some very small value. There's some good reasons admins - including me - let pass some behavior at AfD that might get warnings/sanctions elsewhere but that does have a negative cumulative effect. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. Per below: I don't think the root cause of the issues we see in this case are necessarily that administrators don't feel encouraged and empowered to enforce behavioral policy. Abstaining because I do think that community encouragements are worth proposing and voting on, and I wouldn't mind much if this passed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Per L235. - Donald Albury 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Administrators are already empowered to enforce behavioral norms, it's part of the job description. Articulating it as a remedy is superfluous. Cabayi ( talk) 08:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I'm inclined to abstain for a different reason than Barkeep: I don't think lack of community will to enforce behavioral policies is necessarily at the root of the problems we see in this case. But I'd be glad to be proven wrong. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

General

• In a moment I'm going to vote against the site bans that I haven't already voted against. I think there's a reasonable chance that I will look back on this vote and decide I made the wrong decision. But I need to be completely behind a site ban, our strongest possible remedy, and while I am close to that status I'm not there. That said, I will say that if the site bans do not pass that if there were an appeal brought before us in the next few months that had even 1 strong example of further issues that might be enough to tip me over into support a ban. This might be further issues of the kind we saw (personal attacks, background behavior, etc) in this case or it could be some completely new thing. I'm making this decision because I'd rather make the wrong decision by being too lenient than make the wrong decision by being too strict. But if these site bans do not pass I hope that these editors will reward the faith of the arbs who voted against it rather than making us regret it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  My thoughts are very similar to yours, Barkeep. There is a reasonable chance that I've come down on the wrong side - and I've often looked back on decisions thinking that I did. I am seeing positive comments from multiple participants, so I'm not going to spend my time trying to persuade other arbitrators that bans are the right thing to do, simply, they may not be. However, as I was reading over the evidence, which focussed on the last 2-3 years, and recalling that there is further evidence that the individuals have been subject to sanctions, blocks, ANI threads, for such a long time - I felt that actually, Arbcom is where the line must be drawn. There is no further place for these things to happen, besides Arbcom at ARCA.

  Am I willing to give the individuals one last chance, and put the onus back on the community to bring it back to us in a few months? No, personally, I'm not - I believe the chances have been used up. Worm^TT( talk) 08:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  We shouldn't ever want to ban anyone, but sometimes we need to ban users. I agree with Worm that I'm seeing that two of these folks have exhausted the community's patience with them, not an easy place to arrive at for long-term good-faith contributors. It is explicitly our job to "break the back" of disputes that come before us, and it seems clear to me that lesser sanctions have been tried and didn't do the trick. These aren't lifetime bans, arbcom bans can and have been successfully appealed a number of times. If, after some time away, the user seems to realize that they really were the problem, there is a path back for them. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Izno ( talk) 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC) by Firefly. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	13	0	0		·
2	Healthy and unhealthy conflict	12	0	0		·
3	Consensus	13	0	0		·
4	Proposed deletion	13	0	0		·
5	Bludgeoning	7	4	1		Cannot pass	2 equal first choice; One first choice to 5.1; one second choice to 5.1. As 5.1 is passing so 1 is subtracted and also because 5.1 is passing and 5 is failing votes marked as equal but only for one, lead an extra two to be subtracted
5.1	Bludgeoning	10	2	0		·	2 equal first choice with 5; One second choice to 5; One first choice to 5.
6	Battleground conduct	13	0	0		·
7	Repeated behavior	13	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute: Mass creation of articles	13	0	0		·
2	Locus of dispute: Conduct at Articles for Deletion	13	0	0		·
3	7&6=thirteen	13	0	0		·
4	Johnpacklambert sanction history	13	0	0		·
5	Johnpacklambert deletion conduct	13	0	0		·
6	Lugnuts	13	0	0		·
7	TenPoundHammer	12	0	1		·
8	Mass nominations at Articles for Deletion	13	0	1		·
9	Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion	9	0	2		·
10	Battleground behavior at Articles for Deletion	11	0	2		·
11	No evidence for larger issues at Articles for Deletion	0	9	2		Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	7&6=thirteen warned	5	4	2		1
2	7&6=thirteen topic banned	12	1	0		·
3	7&6=thirteen banned	1	8	2		Cannot pass
4	Johnpacklambert topic banned	13	0	0		·	1 second choice to Johnpacklambert banned
5	Johnpacklambert banned	3	9	0		Cannot pass
6	Lugnuts warned	11	2	0		·
6.1	Lugnuts topic banned	11	0	0		·
6.2	Lugnuts article restrictions	2	8	0		Cannot pass
7	Lugnuts banned	9	1	2		·
8	TenPoundHammer warned	4	3	2		2	One second choice to the topic bans (9.1 and 9.2). As 9.1 passes one is taken off the support count.
9.1	TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)	11	1	1		·
9.2	TenPoundHammer topic banned (2)	4	5	2		2
10	TenPoundHammer banned	2	6	2		Cannot pass
11	Request for Comment	9	2	0		·
12	Community encouraged	3	6	4		Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. This is a bit of a symbolic vote, but cases are getting decided more slowly this year than in 2020 or 2021. I don't think the work of the committees in those years suffered by not letting cases linger and I'd love for any of our future cases to get resolved a little faster. Hence this symbolic vote to close as I believe I've voted on everything open and the RfC remedy - which in some ways is the most important one to me - is passing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
2. All are sufficiently resolved for me to vote to close. -- Izno ( talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
3. Everything is now passing or failing. A sad end to the case. Worm^TT( talk) 19:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 19:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

   Copying a comment I made above here for visibility: In light of recent events I would encourage the community to establish a process by which contributions by Lugnuts might be reviewed and, if needed, speedily reverted or deleted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

6. A sad end indeed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des​ 19:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
8. We appear to have a result. -- Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
10. Maxim_(talk) 12:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
11. Donald Albury 17:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Pending when all proposals have a majority in favor or opposed KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with Kevin. At present, we're not ready, we should have pretty much everything passing or failing, and there are some day 1 proposals that are not. Worm^TT( talk) 08:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments

I'd like to see majorities on 6.2 and 7 before supporting cloture; the rest are more lenient than the passed remedies so I don't see a need to condition closure on them. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply