This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Guerillero ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Firefly ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & CaptainEek ( Talk) & Wugapodes ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
There appears to be no policy-based mechanism for discouraging persistent poor behavior (beyond incivility) at AfDs. Unless a closer gives extensive details on their analysis, it is a total black box to participants as to whether an argument was acceptable or carried any weight. Without having faith that the eventual closer will be both familiar with the relevant guidelines and empowered to disregard non-compliant !votes, other participants feel compelled to waste time explaining why particular arguments are deficient. But because it's coming from "the other side", and because there's no impetus to change if there are no consequences, the feedback is ignored and the behaviors persist. Two of the most common issues, spanning both keep and delete !voters, are:
1. Mass rapid-fire copy-paste !votes or noms with little to no specificity to the subject and zero indication the editor has performed any source evaluation.
2. Intentional, egregiously misleading assertions of source reliability, depth, length, independence, and general compliance with guidelines.
I anticipate we will have plenty of diffs of alleged misbehavior from the named parties, and anyway the issues are more representative of the broader "conduct in deletion discussions" scope, so I won't go into examples from Lugnuts et al's editing. However, in order to demonstrate the scale of affected AfDs and how long the behaviors from single !voters continue without any meaningful intervention, I will need to give a lot of evidence on editors who are not already involved in this case. So before I do that, I want to make sure that that is ok to do here, and how/whether I'm supposed to leave an alert on their talk pages. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have never submitted evidence to an ArbCom case before. Can you comment on the draft I've compiled at User:LaundryPizza03/sandbox#Toolshed before I submit it at the evidence page? Also, where would I place my signature? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49: re [7] In what way is a quotation from Baudelaire (together with the unsupported accusation that "They are relentless in their quest to cleanse and purge the encyclopaedia of all articles they don't like") evidence, while my comment is not? I respectfully suggest that you either remove his comment as well, or restore mine. E Eng 20:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
They are relentless in their quest to cleanse and purge the encyclopaedia of all articles they dont like. Hence perhaps some of the meritless ANIs we see towards effective inclusionists who they might see as standing in their way.have been discussed by the drafting arbs since they were posted. For now they have been allowed to stand as a small part of a larger sourced evidence submission. When saying a sourced evidence submission this includes sourcing and context for the Baudelaire quote - that is at least 1 editor has suggested deletionists don't exist - which does tie into the further evidence submitted. This falls into the range of a submission arbs will use their judgement to see if what has been presented is sufficient to make the assertion. I am glad we both agree your comment was a comment and not a submission of evidence. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Re [8], having now recovered from several minutes of staring blankly into space in slack-jawed amazement, I'll just say the following:
E Eng 22:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The rules say:-
Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
It's my case that some editors are flooding our deletion processes. I want to discuss the sheer numbers of edits -- edits which aren't individually very problematic but become a problem by the combination of high quantity and low quality. Diffs don't help me do that. What would the committee accept by way of evidence?— S Marshall T/ C 18:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have added a request that the editors I highlight in my evidence be added as parties, since the extent of the diffs went beyond what a Category 2 notification would cover. However, the reason I gave examples of alleged misbehavior from those editors was not because they have extensive dispute histories that the community has not been able to handle, but because they exemplify what my first subsection claims: that specific AfD behaviors widely regarded as problematic especially when occurring large-scale are nevertheless not sanctioned until aggravated by incivility. So it is for actually the lack of formal warnings or ANI cases for their behaviors--again, despite being exactly the type of conduct condemned by both "sides", including in several other editors' Evidence sections here, and despite eliciting dozens of informal warnings within discussions--that I included them in my Evidence. If this means they must be added (or officially requested) as parties, then ok, but if it's possible for their behavior to be reviewed without the threat of sanctions, that would probably be more equitable considering the circumstances. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is one significant deficiency in the keep vs. delete statistics which needs to be kept in mind: participation in discussions is utterly voluntary, except for the nominator. Therefore one potential meaning of the voting ratio is that a user may prefer to vote in cases where they would vote "keep" or "delete" rather than that, for any random discussion, they would vote one way or the other. Also, most of us (I imagine) tend to reserve our participation to certain classes of subject. For example, I rarely vote in biography or band or album/song discussions. I haven't tried to run the numbers, but I have to think that the success ratio for nominations in different subject areas varies considerably.
Rather than focusing on who is a deletionist or inclusionist, I think it is more worthwhile to look at the accuracy. From the table I compiled it's clear that there is quite a bit of variance in this, and that some editors have fairly poor accuracy, while at least one editor whom I did not list has a 95% accuracy. I note that Mr. Lambert is reasonably accurate on voting but has a poorer record on nominations, as an example. I am hard pressed to believe that someone who mostly votes delete, accurately, is doing anything wrong in that respect. Mangoe ( talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
A common point of conflict in sports and geography AfDs is the WP:BEFORE search requirement. Some editors believe that noms should go to great lengths to search for sources, even to the point of looking for non-English print sources that may only be available in the subject's locale, while others feel that this is an unfair expectation when dealing with articles that were mass-created from a database by an editor who also didn't search for SIGCOV sources. I feel like this could be addressed here somehow (principle? finding of fact?) but I'm not sure what type of evidence would be appropriate. – dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Some editors believe that noms should go to great lengths to search for sources, even to the point of looking for non-English print sources that may only be available in the subject's locale, while others feel that this is an unfair expectation when dealing with articles that were mass-created from a database by an editor who also didn't search for SIGCOV sources.You could then draft something on the Workshop page that is a principle and FoF about BEFORE. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I have prepared evidence of canvassing; this includes diffs of the notifications that were issued, and who they were issued to. However, I am not sure whether I should notify the fourteen editors these notifications were issued to; they are related to the evidence submitted, but only distantly. Could you clarify? BilledMammal ( talk) 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
May my evidence limit be increased by 500 words/50 diffs? I have collected evidence of Jclemens asking closers to reconsider AfDs closed as delete, based on his disputed interpretation of ATD. There were 6 (3 refused no change to outcome, 1 DRV, 1 relist, 1 self-overturn) in 2017 and roughly the same number in 2022. These are noteworthy examples:
I believe this evidence is in scope because it continues the conversation about minority views from On the statistical evidence.
I am asking to add Jclemens as a party based on this evidence because he has a history of
A reminder could be an appropriate remedy.
I am aware that the original week to add parties has passed, but I saw two comments about the message's exact wording and that Dream Focus is being considered. @ Barkeep49: It seems that you have been the drafting arbitrator most active on this case? Thank you. Flatscan ( talk) 04:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a request to receive written consent of an arbitrator for a word limit increase. I have more information to present, but have reached my 500-word maximum. North America 1000 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Can I please get another 500/50 to add more examples of persistent poor behavior at AfD? JoelleJay ( talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Can I please get another 250/25 to present evidence of canvassing of WikiProjects, as well as AfD's closing with a local consensus? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator.
This is a request to receive written consent of an arbitrator for a word limit increase. I am a party here. I have prepared my response. It necessarily exceeds the limits. I was made a party, and I need to present a defense. A full and conplete exposition will reveal who I am, what I did, and why. I also believe it will shed useful light on "canvassing: allegations and the whole WP:ARS situation: it will benefit the panel, process and wikipedia. I am a lawyer and this is a short as I can make it. I can send it to the aritrators for their review. Please provide a method. It is complete and ready to file. I respectfully request permision to file this, ASAP. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 02:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. The time and date recorded were out of sync with my local time. I don't now why and can't explain it. I'm sorry for the confusion. I am confident you will do wht you believe will help the process. Best to you. Respectfully. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
...the drafting arbs have agreed to include your evidence @ 7&6=thirteen. As the page is now protected I will be copying over User:7&6=thirteen/sandbox for you.Yesterday I linked to both my accepting your evidence and where I edited the evidence page with an edit summary of
evidence was accepted. Now, you're asking for the chance to further edit - presumably with these changes you've done today. As you're now aware the evidence phase closed more than 3 days, which is why you couldn't edit it yourself, but your request will be taken under consideration. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
your request will be taken under consideration. Myself, another drafter, or a clerk will let you know when a decision has been made. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
You are right. That is final. The changes were limited strictly to fixing links. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
If "The evidence phase has been extended one week to allow the submission of evidence (with diffs) about other editors who should be a party to this case", should the "Target dates" not be changed as well? Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Guerillero ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Firefly ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & CaptainEek ( Talk) & Wugapodes ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
There appears to be no policy-based mechanism for discouraging persistent poor behavior (beyond incivility) at AfDs. Unless a closer gives extensive details on their analysis, it is a total black box to participants as to whether an argument was acceptable or carried any weight. Without having faith that the eventual closer will be both familiar with the relevant guidelines and empowered to disregard non-compliant !votes, other participants feel compelled to waste time explaining why particular arguments are deficient. But because it's coming from "the other side", and because there's no impetus to change if there are no consequences, the feedback is ignored and the behaviors persist. Two of the most common issues, spanning both keep and delete !voters, are:
1. Mass rapid-fire copy-paste !votes or noms with little to no specificity to the subject and zero indication the editor has performed any source evaluation.
2. Intentional, egregiously misleading assertions of source reliability, depth, length, independence, and general compliance with guidelines.
I anticipate we will have plenty of diffs of alleged misbehavior from the named parties, and anyway the issues are more representative of the broader "conduct in deletion discussions" scope, so I won't go into examples from Lugnuts et al's editing. However, in order to demonstrate the scale of affected AfDs and how long the behaviors from single !voters continue without any meaningful intervention, I will need to give a lot of evidence on editors who are not already involved in this case. So before I do that, I want to make sure that that is ok to do here, and how/whether I'm supposed to leave an alert on their talk pages. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have never submitted evidence to an ArbCom case before. Can you comment on the draft I've compiled at User:LaundryPizza03/sandbox#Toolshed before I submit it at the evidence page? Also, where would I place my signature? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49: re [7] In what way is a quotation from Baudelaire (together with the unsupported accusation that "They are relentless in their quest to cleanse and purge the encyclopaedia of all articles they don't like") evidence, while my comment is not? I respectfully suggest that you either remove his comment as well, or restore mine. E Eng 20:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
They are relentless in their quest to cleanse and purge the encyclopaedia of all articles they dont like. Hence perhaps some of the meritless ANIs we see towards effective inclusionists who they might see as standing in their way.have been discussed by the drafting arbs since they were posted. For now they have been allowed to stand as a small part of a larger sourced evidence submission. When saying a sourced evidence submission this includes sourcing and context for the Baudelaire quote - that is at least 1 editor has suggested deletionists don't exist - which does tie into the further evidence submitted. This falls into the range of a submission arbs will use their judgement to see if what has been presented is sufficient to make the assertion. I am glad we both agree your comment was a comment and not a submission of evidence. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Re [8], having now recovered from several minutes of staring blankly into space in slack-jawed amazement, I'll just say the following:
E Eng 22:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The rules say:-
Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
It's my case that some editors are flooding our deletion processes. I want to discuss the sheer numbers of edits -- edits which aren't individually very problematic but become a problem by the combination of high quantity and low quality. Diffs don't help me do that. What would the committee accept by way of evidence?— S Marshall T/ C 18:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have added a request that the editors I highlight in my evidence be added as parties, since the extent of the diffs went beyond what a Category 2 notification would cover. However, the reason I gave examples of alleged misbehavior from those editors was not because they have extensive dispute histories that the community has not been able to handle, but because they exemplify what my first subsection claims: that specific AfD behaviors widely regarded as problematic especially when occurring large-scale are nevertheless not sanctioned until aggravated by incivility. So it is for actually the lack of formal warnings or ANI cases for their behaviors--again, despite being exactly the type of conduct condemned by both "sides", including in several other editors' Evidence sections here, and despite eliciting dozens of informal warnings within discussions--that I included them in my Evidence. If this means they must be added (or officially requested) as parties, then ok, but if it's possible for their behavior to be reviewed without the threat of sanctions, that would probably be more equitable considering the circumstances. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is one significant deficiency in the keep vs. delete statistics which needs to be kept in mind: participation in discussions is utterly voluntary, except for the nominator. Therefore one potential meaning of the voting ratio is that a user may prefer to vote in cases where they would vote "keep" or "delete" rather than that, for any random discussion, they would vote one way or the other. Also, most of us (I imagine) tend to reserve our participation to certain classes of subject. For example, I rarely vote in biography or band or album/song discussions. I haven't tried to run the numbers, but I have to think that the success ratio for nominations in different subject areas varies considerably.
Rather than focusing on who is a deletionist or inclusionist, I think it is more worthwhile to look at the accuracy. From the table I compiled it's clear that there is quite a bit of variance in this, and that some editors have fairly poor accuracy, while at least one editor whom I did not list has a 95% accuracy. I note that Mr. Lambert is reasonably accurate on voting but has a poorer record on nominations, as an example. I am hard pressed to believe that someone who mostly votes delete, accurately, is doing anything wrong in that respect. Mangoe ( talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
A common point of conflict in sports and geography AfDs is the WP:BEFORE search requirement. Some editors believe that noms should go to great lengths to search for sources, even to the point of looking for non-English print sources that may only be available in the subject's locale, while others feel that this is an unfair expectation when dealing with articles that were mass-created from a database by an editor who also didn't search for SIGCOV sources. I feel like this could be addressed here somehow (principle? finding of fact?) but I'm not sure what type of evidence would be appropriate. – dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Some editors believe that noms should go to great lengths to search for sources, even to the point of looking for non-English print sources that may only be available in the subject's locale, while others feel that this is an unfair expectation when dealing with articles that were mass-created from a database by an editor who also didn't search for SIGCOV sources.You could then draft something on the Workshop page that is a principle and FoF about BEFORE. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I have prepared evidence of canvassing; this includes diffs of the notifications that were issued, and who they were issued to. However, I am not sure whether I should notify the fourteen editors these notifications were issued to; they are related to the evidence submitted, but only distantly. Could you clarify? BilledMammal ( talk) 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
May my evidence limit be increased by 500 words/50 diffs? I have collected evidence of Jclemens asking closers to reconsider AfDs closed as delete, based on his disputed interpretation of ATD. There were 6 (3 refused no change to outcome, 1 DRV, 1 relist, 1 self-overturn) in 2017 and roughly the same number in 2022. These are noteworthy examples:
I believe this evidence is in scope because it continues the conversation about minority views from On the statistical evidence.
I am asking to add Jclemens as a party based on this evidence because he has a history of
A reminder could be an appropriate remedy.
I am aware that the original week to add parties has passed, but I saw two comments about the message's exact wording and that Dream Focus is being considered. @ Barkeep49: It seems that you have been the drafting arbitrator most active on this case? Thank you. Flatscan ( talk) 04:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a request to receive written consent of an arbitrator for a word limit increase. I have more information to present, but have reached my 500-word maximum. North America 1000 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Can I please get another 500/50 to add more examples of persistent poor behavior at AfD? JoelleJay ( talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Can I please get another 250/25 to present evidence of canvassing of WikiProjects, as well as AfD's closing with a local consensus? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator.
This is a request to receive written consent of an arbitrator for a word limit increase. I am a party here. I have prepared my response. It necessarily exceeds the limits. I was made a party, and I need to present a defense. A full and conplete exposition will reveal who I am, what I did, and why. I also believe it will shed useful light on "canvassing: allegations and the whole WP:ARS situation: it will benefit the panel, process and wikipedia. I am a lawyer and this is a short as I can make it. I can send it to the aritrators for their review. Please provide a method. It is complete and ready to file. I respectfully request permision to file this, ASAP. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 02:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. The time and date recorded were out of sync with my local time. I don't now why and can't explain it. I'm sorry for the confusion. I am confident you will do wht you believe will help the process. Best to you. Respectfully. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
...the drafting arbs have agreed to include your evidence @ 7&6=thirteen. As the page is now protected I will be copying over User:7&6=thirteen/sandbox for you.Yesterday I linked to both my accepting your evidence and where I edited the evidence page with an edit summary of
evidence was accepted. Now, you're asking for the chance to further edit - presumably with these changes you've done today. As you're now aware the evidence phase closed more than 3 days, which is why you couldn't edit it yourself, but your request will be taken under consideration. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
your request will be taken under consideration. Myself, another drafter, or a clerk will let you know when a decision has been made. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
You are right. That is final. The changes were limited strictly to fixing links. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
If "The evidence phase has been extended one week to allow the submission of evidence (with diffs) about other editors who should be a party to this case", should the "Target dates" not be changed as well? Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)