Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:51, 24 July 2022

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed final decision

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I am happy to see this. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7&6=thirteen

3) 7&6=thirteen 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 Squandron discussions (e.g. November 2021, December 2021, & June 2022).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Johnpacklambert sanction history

4) Johnpacklambert 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:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 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. Johnpacklambert's 2022 AfD nominations have particularly focused on articles created by Lugnuts (Cryptic evidence).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Lugnuts

6) By one measure, Lugnuts 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:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TenPoundHammer

7) TenPoundHammer 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:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 prelinary statement).

Support:

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]
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 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]

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:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

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]
Donald Albury 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

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]
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]
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]

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:

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]
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]
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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

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:

Abstain:

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:

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
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.
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 Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 00:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC) by Donald Albury.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	3	0	0		·
2	Healthy and unhealthy conflict	3	0	0		·
3	Consensus	3	0	0		·
4	Proposed deletion	3	0	0		·
5	Bludgeoning	3	0	0		·
6	Battleground conduct	3	0	0		·
7	Repeated behavior	3	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute: Mass creation of articles	3	0	0		·
2	Locus of dispute: Conduct at Articles for Deletion	3	0	0		·
3	7&6=thirteen	3	0	0		·
4	Johnpacklambert sanction history	3	0	0		·
5	Johnpacklambert deletion conduct	3	0	0		·
6	Lugnuts	3	0	0		·
7	TenPoundHammer	3	0	0		·
8	Mass nominations at Articles for Deletion	2	0	0		·
9	Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion	1	0	0		·
10	Battleground behavior at Articles for Deletion	2	0	0		·
11	No evidence for larger issues at Articles for Deletion	0	3	0		Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	7&6=thirteen warned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
2	7&6=thirteen topic banned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
3	Johnpacklambert topic banned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
4	Johnpacklambert banned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
5	Lugnuts warned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
6	Lugnuts banned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
7	TenPoundHammer warned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
8	TenPoundHammer topic banned	0	0	0		Cannot pass
9	Request for Comment	3	0	0		·
10	Community encouraged	1	0	1		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

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

@@ Line 262: / Line 262: @@
 :Comments:
-: I hope any solution adopted by the community for problems created by mass nominations for deletion is balanced by a solution fpr the problems created by mass creation of poorly sourced stubs. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
+: 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. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 ===Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion ===