Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Comments by BilledMammal

Proposed decision#Johnpacklambert deletion conduct

Regarding this finding of fact, I don't think "focused" is the right word, as it implies causation, while Cryptic's evidence suggests correlation. John Pack Lambert has been reviewing stubs that are part of the 1898-1914 birth categories, with a focus on Olympians. Within this focus Lugnuts has created approximately 50% of the articles, increasing to 64.4% when you consider only non-medallists who don't meet WP:NOLY and thus are more likely targets to be nominated for deletion, but of John Pack Lambert's nominations only 38% were for articles Lugnuts created.

I suspect, without evidence, that the lower figure is due to John Pack Lambert not limiting his nominations to Olympians but including some from areas that Lugnuts has created a lower proportion of articles in, but as the only other explanation is that John Pack Lambert was deliberately avoiding some articles created by Lugnuts I don't see that discrepancy as an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vaulter:, I think you misunderstood that comment. For the past several weeks John Pack Lambert has been avoiding nominating articles by Lugnuts as a sensible precaution to avoid throwing fuel onto the fire. My impression of that comment was him asking whether he can now go back to not caring about who created the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

To add to this: given John Pack Lambert's stated focus and Lugnuts creation rates, the chance of nominating at least this many articles by Lugnuts is 38.5%. I believe this is sufficiently high that we are required to assume good faith and believe John Pack Lambert when he tells us that he was not focusing on Lugnuts.

The 38.5% is calculated using the cumulative binomial distribution equation with the variables filled through Cryptic's and Scottywong's evidence; Cryptic's evidence tells us that 37, or all but one, of the articles created by Lugnuts and nominated by John Pack Lambert are of Olympians, so we focus on these. Manually reviewing Scottywong's evidence we see that every Olympian nomination John Pack Lambert has made has been of a non-medallist, so we further narrow this down to non-medallists, and Cryptic's evidence tells us that of the relevant articles 64.4% have been created by Lugnuts. Finally, Cryptic's evidence tells us that John Pack Lambert has nominated 55 articles on Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Creation throttling

Regarding the comment by the Worm That Turned, such throttling has already been applied; Lugnuts is topic banned from creating articles consisting of less than 500 words. Since that ban was applied, he has created just ten articles (Linked in my evidence, in the collapsed section "Article creation rates"). Unless you are referring to a more general throttle? BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @BilledMammal I'd missed that the topic ban had been so effective. Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert participation

I believe the advice John Pack Lambert is referring to was from me, and can be found on my talk page. It wasn't my intention to recommend that they don't participate in the process, just that they participate in an unrushed manner and not reply to everything. However, I was insufficiently clear, particularly with the opening line of my response, and I can see how he misinterpreted it as a recommendation to avoid the process in general.

I apologize to the committee and to John Pack Lambert, and ask the committee considers this when considering his lack of earlier participation. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Low quality participation at AfD

I find this finding of fact problematic, because it suggests several behaviours are closely associated with low quality participation, but this isn't true; while these behaviours can be problematic, whether they are depends on the context.

First, it is often reasonable for editors to !vote after reviewing the evidence currently presented in the discussion and available at the article; WP:BEFORE doesn't apply to the participants. However, the line where editors sometimes appeared to not fully research an article topic before leaving a comment would suggest that participants are required to search for sources before !voting, as if they don't they haven't "fully researched" the topic.

Second, it is sometimes reasonable to reuse rationale. For example, I recently nominated eighteen Nielsen's for deletion. These were mass created articles on 20th century Danish footballers with the last name "Nielsen", sourced solely to statistical sources. Being so similar the same rationale often applied to each of them; once editors determine that the same rationale applies, as many of the editors in those AfD's did so, there is no need to think up a novel argument for each of them. However, editors would re-use reationale at multiple pages suggests that they should do this. As a side note, rationale is misspelt here.

Third, a "short period of time" is undefined; editors making several responses a minute is too fast, but it doesn't take long for an editor to look at an article, realize that its one source is not WP:SIGCOV, realize that the five editors who have already commented have not been able to identify any suitable sources and are instead arguing about whether sources might exist, and !vote Redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team; fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:GNG, the former of which requires that at least one source be identified for us to assume the others might exist and thus keep despite GNG not being met. However, editors would leave comments on many deletion discussions in a short period of time suggests that such a brief evaluation, despite being comprehensive and based in policy, is problematic.

In addition, GiantSnowman's evidence points out the other issue with this; editors might make several votes in a short period of time, but we don't know how much time they spent considering their vote. BilledMammal (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon

Timely Start of Proposed Decision

I congratulate and thank the drafting arbitrators for publishing the draft proposed decision at the beginning of the day when it was planned. It is framed in a way that should facilitate the difficult process of working toward a decision. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I second this comment. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Scope of This Decision

I agree with the comment that was made that there are other issues about deletion that have not been addressed in this case. I think that the arbitrators may discover that this case has opened the door to further cases involving deletion, including the Article Rescue Squadron (not included in this case because not within scope because not in initial statements, but complained about by some editors), and probably other specific editors. We can hope that it only has a second incarnation and not three and four (like Israel and Palestine). I understand that the arbitrators haven't addressed all of the continuing community concerns, largely because the community has only documented some of its concerns for this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Threeish points:

1. While I regret not voting to accept your November case request, I'm not sure we'd have headed off this particular request. So by one measure we could already be at two.
2. I've acknowledged that I am concerned that we'll be back here in 6-18 months time. For me the comparison I'd like to avoid is Infoboxes which took 3 times. Israel and Palestine is a centuries long conflict and so it might just be one where every few years things need adjusting based on real world conditions. That is it's not a failure of the arbcom solution to work, it's an acknowledgement of just how intractable the problem is.
3. Editors complain about lots of stuff at ArbCom. The chance to have a final dispute resolution body implement your preferred outcome is a frequent hope for people at ArbCom. I don't say this in a "they want to abuse the process say" I just say it is as it is.

3A. We took the community seriously when they said "there's problems beyond the two in this case request" and added two additional parties at the start of the case. We further took it seriously by giving the community an extra week to compile evidence that other parties should be added and then no one took us up on it. That extra week of evidence is basically why the decision was posted on the original timetable - much of the evidence came in early so we were able to process it more gradually - so it wasn't worthless but it was a definite miss of an opportunity for those people who say that this problem is larger than this case.

Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If I can be candid about my thoughts here, Robert, I was disappointed about how few additional parties the community asked to add, which I think constrained the kinds of evidence the community would end up presenting, which (I believe) constrained the drafters' ability to resolve the broader problems the community raised during the case request. Even with those constraints, I think the drafters hit the ball out of the park with this PD. I hope it will be enough, but can't say so with confidence. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

Johnpacklambert topic banned

The first and third points of this remedy are unclear (at least to me).

• Johnpacklambert is banned from taking the following actions: 1) deletion discussions, broadly construed What they are banned from? Is it all participation in XfD discussions? Participating in discussions about the deletion process? Nominating pages for deletion? Something else?
• 3) turning an article into a redirect. Given that contesting a proposed deletion is explicitly allowed under point 2, the lack of mention of contesting someone else converting an article into a redirect means it's unclear to me whether they are allowed to do that (I don't recall any evidence regarding this being presented, but I haven't double checked). Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If JPL ends up topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, yes that's all participation. I actually thought adding "participation" would make it unclear if they could nominate stuff still. Reverting someone else's redirect convert isn't "turning an article into a redirect" and thus not covered. And yes there is no evidence about abuse of declined PRODs or reverted redirects with JPL. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see this prior to making my copyedit. Feel free to revert, but we do need a verb at the start of (1). If you really want, you could make it "initiating or participating in". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion

IMO this misses a crucial aspect that while some editors are unwiiling to fully research a topic/look for sources before commenting - whether reaosnably or unreasonably they feel that the burden of doing this should be on those with the opposing viewpoint, others are/feel willing but unable to fully research an article topic/look for sources before commenting due to the volume of articles/nominations. The second part does not (to me) come across in the finding at all. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's hinted at in the first sentence but not explicitly stated. I'd be open to stating it. Pinging CaptainEek as a drafter and the only one who has voted on it so far. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I think you have a valid point: the problem of mass nominations is that it stretches our editors thin. But I think the finding already gets that across? I'm hesitant to expand what is already a long finding. If you have some alternative wording that'd be helpful :) Otherwise, this is a good idea to present at the RfC (should it pass). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

General comments (Thryduulf)

Overall this proposed decision seems good at first read, and I have hope for the structured and moderated RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Participants only get one !vote (Thryduulf's comments)

Re S Marshall's comments on this aspect, it's not quite true that participants only get to make one recommendation. They can make as many as they wish that are not duplicates or concurrently self contradictory - e.g. one can recommend "keep or merge", "keep" then later "I'm also happy with the merge suggestion", "delete" then later "changing my !vote to keep", etc. and one can also explicitly oppose as many other suggestions as you wish (whether or not you support anything). And of course when multiple pages are included in the same nomination you can do all this for each page or any combination of pages if you want (e.g. "keep foo, delete bar"). This is all getting very into the weeds though, and I don't think that more complicated than "one !vote, unlimited comments" is beneficial (particularly if note is made that this is a basic summary of something that is much more complicated in detail). Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

S Marshall

Nothing about canvassing?—S Marshall T/C 09:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not called that but is mentioned in the TPH FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. I offered evidence of others canvassing but maybe the committee doesn't think that's a big deal.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Participants only get one !vote

Suggest: Each participant is allowed to make no more than one recommendation to the closer. These recommendations are often called "!votes", and often but not necessarily phrased as words in bold.

Sorry that that's a lot less pithy.—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thryduulf, I still think it's precisely correct to say that an editor gets one (1) recommendation to the closer per deletion nomination. You're right to note that there are cases where the discussion consists of multiple nominations bundled together, in which case our editor can reasonably make up to as many recommendations as there are nominations. You're also right to note the cases where our example editor's recommendation allows several potential outcomes, your example being "keep or merge" and I would include "delete or redirect" or "do not delete" in this; the key point is that the editor seeks to eliminate one or more possibilities from consideration. I would still consider that to be one recommendation. You also identify cases where our example editor's recommendation to the closer evolves as they engage in reasoned debate, in which case best practice for them is to strike their previous recommendation. What's prohibited is to repeat the same recommendation several times in different places in the debate.
  If an editor puts the same word in bold several times, we have some self-appointed AfD police who will take them to task for it, as if the closer might be fooled into believing there's a false consensus. I think that in practice, that's needless. We expect our closers to be observant and meticulous and for the most part they are -- nobody who's got any business closing an AfD should be fooled by such a thing -- but it's become a sacred cow that you only get one word in bold, and I do think phrasing it as a "recommendation to the closer" rather than a "!vote" helps capture that.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Vaulter

In response to BilledMammal, I'm not sure how you can read through the June ANI thread and not come away with the impression that JPL is focused on Lugnuts. He also more or less admitted on your talk page just days ago that he's going to resume focusing on Lugnuts' articles once this case is closed if given the chance. -- Vaulter 14:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by isaacl

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision § Johnpacklambert topic banned: the confusing aspect is that although the introduction to the list announces a list of actions, item 1 is not an action. It would be helpful if either item 1 could be broken out into a separate sentence, or modified so that it is an action. isaacl (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision § Bludgeoning, I think it's somewhat contradictory to say that participants get one not-vote. As described in the linked text, not-votes are individual views in a consensus-building discussion. As discussions have many different aspects, and thus editors can weigh in with different points at different times, I feel it is too reductionist to say each editor can only have one view. I do agree with the underlying concern that overly long and repetitive comments reduce the effectiveness of the discussion process, through drowning out voices and causing people to lose attention. I understand why a lot of editors preferred threaded discussion to separate sections. To be effective, though, co-operation is necessary, as well as focus and patience, in order to allow everyone time to express their views and reasoning. isaacl (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dlthewave

Johnpacklambert deletion conduct

I'm concerned about the precedent that would be set by the FoF "Johnpacklambert's 2022 AfD nominations have particularly focused on articles created by Lugnuts (Cryptic evidence)", as seems to take JPL's deletion statistics as prima facie evidence of misconduct. This runs counter to WP:HOUND which allows and even encourages the use of an editor's contribution history to correct recurring problems: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." Does this mean that, say, an editor working through a copyright violator's work may be engaging in misconduct? I would encourage arbs to be cautious about what is being said here, absent specific evidence that this is indeed hounding/harassment and not one of the allowable reasons to "focus" on a particular editor's contributions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by JBL

In FoF5, the sentence 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 doesn't work -- perhaps the comma should before "but" instead? JBL (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, L235.
I also think this removal by Barkeep49 was a clear improvement. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The table in Implementation notes currently wrongly asserts that there are 3 abstentions on FoF7. --JBL (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll fixed now and thanks for raising. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by HouseBlaster

I assume the drafters meant to say that the discussion will be advertised at WP:ACN, not ACN HouseBlaster^talk 00:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by JoelleJay

I am concerned with the JPL FoF that states he targeted Lugnuts' articles. He has clearly been focused on non-medaling Olympian stubs in a particular birth date range, which just happen to have been largely created by Lugnuts. When a particular category of articles no longer meets SNG criteria, and furthermore has been found to be a very poor predictor of GNG -- as was determined in the NOLY RfC -- it is perfectly reasonable for editors to scrutinize that category and bring articles in it to AfD. @Dlthewave's comment is highly relevant here. If one user is responsible for the vast plurality of problematic articles in that group, it is acceptable to look over their contributions specifically to address the issues. That's not what JPL has been doing, but even more importantly, sanctioning someone for such "targeting" is completely at odds with HOUND.

I am also confused by the FoF that the deletion policy requires consideration of ATD, when that language is not present whatsoever at DEL and anyway such consideration would be difficult to "prove" unless nominators outlined why each ATD was rejected.

Finally, I didn't see any evidence that high AfD flows are responsible for copy-paste drive-by !votes, just a post hoc suggestion of correlation. It's not like, e.g., GiantSnowman was providing much beyond "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" back in 2017, either. I don't disagree that it's tiring and emotionally taxing to review increasing numbers of AfD subjects, or that it likely decreases participation in any one discussion, but I definitely don't think it's the reason for epsilon-effort !votes. I'm pretty sure the real reason is because they work in a system where counting !votes is the primary deciding factor for most closers. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Johnpacklambert

The characterization of my targeting any particular editor in my AfD proposals is truly unfair. This is especially true because my methods of finding such articles are entirely creating editor neutral. I an doing my general review of articles in a given birth year. I come upon an article that lacks adequate souring to justify keeping. I then do an indepth search for sources in Google, Google books, Google New archives, sometimes Google News but that rarely brings up much on those born in the 1890s. For some I have also tried to search in another news archive. I also generally try to consult ant other language version of the article. By this method I really do not learn who the creator is until after I do the nomination and then look through the history to find a creator to notify of the proposed deletion. So I do not pre-select deletions based on creator because I do not even know the creator before I do them. At least this is the method I used until June. Since June I skip over any and all Olympic articles because I am trying to avoid an issue. Even the Olympic articles that were not created by a certain editor have generally been edited by that editor, and since creators do not have ownership of articles, If I am going to try to avoid an interaction with a particular editor it needs to be in the form of not knowingly nominating any article they have edited, not just articles they have edited. I should have phrased my question as "articles related to Olympians." One think I do not think has been considered enough. The other editor in question contributed large numbers of articles in fields unrelated to the Olympics as well, but as far asI know I have nominated no other such articles for deletion this year. If I was really trying to target such an editors work, instead of trying to enforce Ina small way the decision that non-medaling Olympians lack default notability, I would have most likely gone after some of those non-medaling articles as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I misnamed this and I should have put my name on it. I am nit sure how to fix this mistake from my phone. This is my first time dealing with the Arbcom process. I find the claim that my "judgement" in dealing with Lugnuts created articles is low totally unfair. There are no standard ways to propose a redirect, and be guaranteed actual discussion on it in a reasonable time frame. In fact the ANI reveals some editors arguing one should boldly redirect and go from there, and others arguing that boldly redirecting is a bad policy and one should start by taking the page to AfD. It is clear that this confusion about what to do about articles that are clearly not notable but might be suitable candidates for redirect is unclear. Beyond this I feel thos whole statement ignores the real confusing thing. On a let a few occasions I did redirect an article, it was reverted by Lugnuts, and he then proceeded to argue for redirect in the deletion discussion. Which begs the question, if he supports a redirect, why is he reverting it. Another occurrence was on multiple occasions when nominating an article for deletion I explained why it would not in fact be a good candidate for redirect, because there were multiple other people with the exact same name who were at least as close to notable as the intended target. Some editors then came along and supported redirects without even bothering to acknowledge the other people and explain why they were being ignored. So I do not think confusion around redirects is unique to me, and I find the characterization here to clearly ignore the reality of the ANI where it was clear editors in general do not have clear agreements on the best ways to change articles into redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I was advised it was best to not participate in the discussion. This may have been unwise. The statement about "a warning about nominating 1922 articles for deletion" I believe is not a fair characterization of what happened. I neer nominated any articles in category:1922 births for deletion. The comment was by one editor, and not based on fact. I had nominated 2 articles in the that category for deletion, in by that point probably a week or more of time I was able to edit, but if you read the statement that person is not saying those nominations per se were problematic, they were just warning against doing such nominations on a large scale. I do not think an aside like that by one editor, that is not even objecting to activity that has occused but warning against possible future activity that might occur (I did not nominate any articles at all for deletion for over 2 months after that, maybe longer). As far as I know I have only ever nominated 2 articles from Category:1922 births, one on 20th August which when I found it had been tagged for about 2 years as having no sources, and one on 23rd August, which was deleted. The later comment was not made about either of these, just as a general opposition. I do not think including this point is a fair assessment of anything, because no one was objecting to my actual behavior, just making a point about potential future behavior. Whether those two nominations were really good, is open to question, but the person making the comment did not actually analyzie these nominations and the comment seems to have been made without actual knowledge of the nominations, and so I do not think it is worth incorporating into findings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  In terms of the advice not to participate, as the policy says Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. Some editors have dug themselves a deeper hole because of poor participation in cases, while others have saved themselves from trouble. Given the ways your participation has moderated some of the concerns at past ANI discussions I think you might have been well served to participate. I make this comment not to pick on you - you'll notice no arb has criticized you for it - and more for the next person who might get that advice.

  As for the 1922 births there was extensive ANI discussion about it. Am I correct in understanding that you're suggesting that whole discussion was based on a misunderstanding? I want to make sure I know what to be looking at when I go and re-review the evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by jc37

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Proposed_decision#Bludgeoning

Proposed principle #5 is simply contrary to policy, and actually would encourage some of the behaviours that I presume this case is attempting to address.

First, putting an ! in front of the word "vote" has become common place to suggest "not" a vote, but context has it slowly being defined as one. And yes, we can claim that a single expression of opinion is not a vote, but seriously, a single expression of opinion is indeed a "vote" in this context, especially if we are implicitly preventing follow-up discussion. We should be going out of our way to support the consensus process, not to embrace how the process is like voting, and could be more like voting.

And so, whether you are intending to or not, you are turning an essay into policy.

Second, if one of the goals here is to curtail drive-by voting, this finding undermines it. There is an attitude conveyed rather commonly in discussions of "I've posted my opinion, how dare someone question it, or ask me to clarify". Clearly, drive-by, by definition. Consensus is about having a discussion. No one is "required" to respond, but collegiate discussion should be expected, as should requests for clarification.

Instead of counting responses, we should be looking at content of the responses, the quality of the responses. The number of bytes of text should be immaterial, as long as the discussion is collegiate and civil. - jc37 06:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Moderator for the RfC remedy

I'm still making up my mind about the RfC remedy but clearly the appointed moderator will be instrumental to the success or failure of the RfC. The power to select the questions at an ArbCom-appointed RfC is not lightly assigned. It would ease my mind a bit on this remedy if an editor highly experienced in moderating and closing RfCs would volunteer as a candidate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from EW

Some thoughts in no particular order from an AfD participant who's been watching this case from the sidelines—hopefully they're at least somewhat helpful.

• This is a solid PD and I think it's going to be helpful in minimizing disruption. Many thanks to the drafters for their work.
• I'm surprised that we're only looking at t-banning TPH from deletion discussions, broadly construed. I think there's evidence that the disruption has carried over to PROD as well: see LaundryPizza03's evidence (prodding 637 articles in three weeks, including 146 in a single day). I think a broader t-ban (along the lines of the one that's being proposed for JPL) would be a more effective response to the problem.
• This sanction supersedes the previous community topic ban – probably best to clarify which of the two topic bans you're referring to. By the way, would there be any harm in leaving the previous t-ban in place? If the ArbCom t-ban were ever lifted, the community would probably prefer for the narrower one-a-day restriction to remain.
• North8000 prelinary statement and Article Rescue Squandron – typos
• The Lugnuts finding of fact should probably mention the civility issues (see FOARP's evidence) since I think that's a key aspect of the problem here (plus making personal attacks and engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions are both included in a proposed remedy).
• I'm not sure how I feel about the RfC remedy. It's not a bad idea in principle, but I just struggle to see it generating an actionable consensus that'll stop these issues from bubbling up again a few months or years down the road. If there are structural problems with AfD, then the mass-nomination issues are more of a symptom than anything else (partially a temporary symptom as the community responds to the NSPORTS changes). The main issue with AfD, I think, is simply that the community struggles with dealing with disruptive editors there, as evidenced by the fact that ANI no-consensus monster-threads regarding the named parties have been going on for years. There's no RfC that's going to fix that, I fear. I think it's good that standard discretionary sanctions haven't been proposed here (as CaptainEek puts it, the bureaucratic weight would be stifling in an area that is already short of contributors), but we need some better way to deal with disruption if we're to keep these issues from recurring.

Hopefully something in here is useful. Thanks again to all the arbitrators for all their work on these thorny issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that several of your suggestions were implemented in the PD. I thought it worth saying here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Lugnuts

FWIW, taken directly from BilledMammal's talkpage: "I was very unhappy to see proposed bans for you (JPL) and Lugnuts - I don't believe either would be in the interest of the encyclopedia." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And the reply from BM - "We disagree on a lot, and I believe you (and, to a lesser extent, John Pack Lambert) need to adjust your behaviour at AfD, but I also believe the encyclopedia is better off with both of you contributing at AfD and in general". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal and Worm That Turned: again, FWIW, the last three new articles I've started have all become frontpage DYKs too (Muzamil Sherzad, Arlene Kelly and Alex Horton). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noted that, thanks. I'm no longer considering further throttling. Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

This is now in the hands of the arbitrators. Let's allow them to make their own collective decision. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by CT55555

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Proposed_decision#Bludgeoning

At first I was very happy to see this. I reminds me of WP:COAL which I wish was a norm, but right now AfD feels a bit exhausting and I've recently reduced by participation due how much work it can take to defend a !vote. So I welcomed this at first, but then I realised that it's a bad way to reach consensus.

I wonder if there is a more nuanced way to get a similar outcome that discourages bludgeoning but allows debate and consensus building CT55555 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)