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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thank the arbitrators for including the principles on bludgeoning and on battleground conduct. Bludgeoning and battleground conduct are all too common in AFDs. They are usually ignored by closers, which is what the closer should do. However, occasionally an editor has a valid argument but cause it to be ignored because they are too combative about it. I don't know how relevant this is to the current case, but there is currently an article at DRV where an editor was ignored because they were shouting too loudly. Sometimes an editor gets ignored because they are yelling, but once in a while they are right even though they act like they are just stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including this principle. Sometimes the obvious needs to be restated anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to moderate the discussion leading to the RFC and to post the RFC. I don't have a lot of experience in closing contentious RFCs, and so I would ask for two more editors to form a closing panel if I were the opener. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  • Could you link to this ANI discussion. It was almost a year ago. The basic issue was that I had on my return to editing Wikipedia agreed to edit only Category:1922 births articles. This was before the ban on editing articles related to religion or religious figures "broadly construed" and making any edits related to that in any article had been imposed. The 1922 debate was basically about whether or not I should be able to edit Wikipedia at all. Some people made comments about my possibly nominating lots of 1922 articles for deletion, but they did not back this up with any analysis of other 1922 articles I had deleted. Others made some claim that the reason I wanted to edit Category:1922 births was because the father of a person who I had mentioned many times in examples about various issues was born in 1922, and this was alledgely my way to allow me to edit the article on that individual. My actual reason for wanting to edit Category:1922 births was because that was where I was in my article by article review backward through birth cats that I had started in 1927. The debate was really about whether the 12 days or so I had been banned from Wikipedia was sufficient and whether I should be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. It was really a follow up to a discussion started before the ban, and was a continuation of analysis of pre-ban activity. No one had any real examples of 1922 related edits that they objected to, some were objecting to allowing me to edit articles at all, or claiming that 1922 might still be problematic related to other events, but there were no claim evidence presented in that debate that my 1922 editing was not acceptable at all. At least I do not recall any. From that point until December virtually all my edits were in articles in specific birth year categories. I also had a misunderstanding as to whether it was acceptable to make comments about "religious figures broadly construed" on my talk page. Part of this was fueled by the fact I did make some comments on my talk page about people who feel under that rubric in relation to their birth years being miscategorized in Wikipedia. One person who in some ways falls under that rublic was nominated for deletion. The nomination for deletion in part related to whether the institution of higher learning he lead is such that leading it meets the academic notability guideline related to instutution of higher learning leaders. I made a comment on my talk page about the general principal of what institutions of higher learning trigger a pass of this criteria, in which I mentioned this person by name. I had not realized that such a comment on the talk page that did not say anything about religion broadly construed would be problematic. I was blocked from editing, but was able to convince people that this was caused by a misunderstanding of exactly what was allowed on a talk page relevant to a ban. In the process of that discussion I inquired about whether I was still restricted to only editing articles in a given birth year category. At that time I was told that no, the only lasting ban from the August/September events was the "religion and religious leaders broadly construed" one. So I started doing some edits that were not to articles that were bios in the given birth year I was reviewing. However I believe the 1922 births discussion was never a discussion of any actual activity related to the 1922 births, it was basically that I and an administrator had worked out an agreement where I was able to resume editing if I initially focused on Category:1922 births and basically those objecting had no substantive issues with my editing of that category, they basically just did not feel it was soon enough for me to be editing at all. Others felt that maybe I should be restricted to a different category, but none of that was really based on any edits I had done on the 1922 births year category at all. At least that is how it appeared to me at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    First that's an awful lot of bold. Did you forget to close a tag somewhere in there? The link to the ANI discussion is here and here's the formal unblcok accept. What might be confusing is that the concerns were over your 1921 work continuing into the work you stated you were going to do in 1922. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I forgot to unbold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well actually I put a bold mark (which I can not visually represent without it going into effect) in a spot on accident where I should have put ". I have corrected it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My 1921 edits were done after my 1922 edits. The spirt of the objections I think are caught by this comment "and even then, "1922 births" seems like such a niche area that it's hard not to assume they may have a biography in mind within the wheelhouse they're best avoiding" - so basically because I chose 1922 there must be some bio in there I want to edit that I should not edit. This was before the religion related topic ban was imposed. I actually started this with 1927 and was going backward, and explained this. the specific year was chosen on the suggestion of the adminstrator who wanted to have me pick one specific category. Category:1922 births currently has 8,375 entries. So I am not sure exactly how it is "niche", and That wording makes it clearly a case of assuming bad faith. I have continued in the main since that point to this systematically going back through birth years. I did not pick 1922 because there was any article there I wanted to edit, I picked 1922 because it was where I was with my project of going back through the birth year articles. I at least do not think we should allow such accusations thrown out with no evidence to stand. Also I think we need to understand that essentially this disucussion and the one that resulted in the Topic ban on religion and religious leaders were going over the same general issues, and occuring at same time, and at heart responding to the same intial circumstances. There is no action done in the 1922 editing that prompts this, it is just a case of multi places on Wikipedia scrutinzing the same editor for essentially the same actions at the same time. It ends up treating what is one reaction as 2 just because it ended up being open in 2 places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• While I understnad not wanting people to make too many comments on AfD, other times people fault a nominator for not responding to a request to retract it. If you want to have people follow up and add more comments, we should not treat such actions as a possible violation of policy. Yes, some people do comment too much, but the wording about that issue I think comes to close to saying people should put everything in their vote. I think this is especially unwise because some AfDs come down to assessing sources not in the English language, which many English-language editors may be unable to find. So if someone comes along and says "I found x, x and x sources in Polish", we should not have wondering that would make people hesitant about changing their vote to "keep" from "delete" at that point. At the same time we should not have language that would worry editors about coming back and saying "even with those sources I still do not think we should have this article because the sources do not meet GNG" or any other comments that could follow up. I have even seen multiple times where editors petition previous contributors to a deletion discussion to come back and analyze after the further contributions the article now meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lugnuts just nominated some articles related to cricket for proposed deletion. This may be a change in relation to his past behavior that may cause people to want to evaluate things again. I thanked him for the nominations. I at least wanted to bring it up. To me it seems a good sign of a new trend, that I think is an improvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am very, very sorry about being disruptive on Wikipedia in the past. I have been trying very, very, very, very hard to abide by the restrictions that have been placed on me. I really think I can be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. If people want to ban me from contributing to any deletion related discussions, I will accept that. However I do not think a full site ban is waranted. I also do not think a deletion ban is warrented. I think it is much better to offer clearer guidelines on some matters related to deletion discussions and allow time to see if people will abide by or follow them. I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and am trying to do many things to make it a better project. I am very sorry that in the past I have been rash, or not thought out my comments. I do not think a ban on editing Wikipedia would be reasonable at this time, and do not think it is really supported by any findings. I really feel I can be a positive contributor to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At a certain level Wikipedia requires people to be able to understand and follow norms even when policies and guidelines are written more broadly and without tons of specifics. I think this comment show that is not one of your skills (I think it is much better to offer clearer guidelines on some matters related to deletion discussions and allow time to see if people will abide by or follow them). I think you have an earnestness and commitment to Wikipedia that has meant you have escaped sanctions others might have been subjected to. But what your comment above fails to address is why the next effort to avoid problems at deletion will be successful where the last ones haven't been. So while your earnestness and commitment to Wikipedia might be enough to lead me not to support a site ban, those alone are not sufficient to convince me not to vote for the proposed topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current issue seems to mainly be around issues with redirect, Olympians and one editor. Would it work if I promised to only nominate one article for deletion at most every 24 hours, to not respond against any suggestion to redirect that article, to not nominate any article for proposed deletion, to not redirect any article, and to not make more than one comment on any given redirect article. Also if I promised to not nominate more than 1 article in any week by any given editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, since the 1 every 24 hours is the current limit, I would accept no more than 1 nomination every 48 hours and no more than 3 nominations in any given 7 day period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider a maximum number of daily AfD contributions. Or maybe a minimum time between any contributions. I have no idea what types of numbers might be reasonable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 my 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)[reply]