Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 504: Line 504:


:Oppose:
:Oppose:
:# 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. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
:# 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). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


:Abstain:
:Abstain:

Revision as of 20:35, 25 July 2022

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority

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.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 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]

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. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 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]
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 WormTT(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]
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. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

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. WormTT(talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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. WormTT(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]
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. WormTT(talk) 15:36, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 25 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 reationale 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]
Oppose:
Abstain:
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. WormTT(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. WormTT(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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 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]
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]
Abstain:
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. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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 there is further disruptive behavior with deletion, broadly construed, uninvolved administrators may block or topic ban for up to 1 year as an Arbitration Enforcement action.

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]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

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 WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Johnpacklambert topic banned

3) 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. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 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

4) 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:
Oppose:
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]

Lugnuts warned

5) Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior. If there is further disruptive behavior with deletion, broadly construed, uninvolved administrators may block or topic ban for up to 1 year as an Arbitration Enforcement action.

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]
Oppose:
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 WormTT(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. WormTT(talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts banned

6) Lugnuts (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:
Oppose:
  1. 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]
Abstain:
Comments:
Considering. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer warned

7) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is warned against disruptive behavior in deletion discussions. If there is further disruptive behavior with deletion, broadly construed, uninvolved administrators may block or topic ban for up to 1 year as an Arbitration Enforcement action.

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]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

TenPoundHammer topic banned

8) 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. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 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). --Izno (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Request for Comment

9) 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]
Oppose:
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 WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community encouraged

10) 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]
Oppose:
  1. Eek's point is well taken, Discretionary sanctions do have the possibility of stifling participation in 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. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 25 July 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]
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]

Proposed enforcement

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

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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 KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC) by Izno.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 6 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Healthy and unhealthy conflict 4 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Consensus 6 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Proposed deletion 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Bludgeoning 6 1 0 PASSING ·
6 Battleground conduct 6 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Repeated behavior 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute: Mass creation of articles 6 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Locus of dispute: Conduct at Articles for Deletion 6 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Johnpacklambert sanction history 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Johnpacklambert deletion conduct 6 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Lugnuts 6 0 0 PASSING ·
7 TenPoundHammer 5 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion 1 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Battleground behavior at Articles for Deletion 4 0 0 PASSING ·
11 No evidence for larger issues at Articles for Deletion 0 4 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
3 Johnpacklambert topic banned 1 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Johnpacklambert banned 0 0 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 Lugnuts warned 1 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Lugnuts banned 0 0 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7 TenPoundHammer warned 1 1 1 PASSING ·
8 TenPoundHammer topic banned 1 0 1 PASSING ·
9 Request for Comment 4 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Community encouraged 1 2 1 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING Cannot pass Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING Cannot pass 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
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Proposed_decision&oldid=1100417399"