Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jclemens

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The various nuances of what this means have been refined throughout Wikipedia's existence, and our current self-understanding as a project is summarized at WP:WIAE, which in turn references pages that are the result of community discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Imperfection

2) "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." WP:NOTPERFECT, emphasis added.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It depends heavily on the reason for why an article is poor. If it's poor because it's incomplete, or has spelling/grammar errors, or doesn't have enough images, then it's welcome. But if it's poor because it's entirely a copyright violation, or it's about a clearly non-notable subject, or because no sources can be found to substantiate anything in the article, then it's not welcome. Not all "poor" articles are the same, and not all are welcome. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It also depends on whether it can be improved. If some editors argue that it cannot be improved to correct the aspect that currently mandates deletion while others argue that it can then those who believe it can be improved need to present evidence of this, either in the form of sources that can be used for such improvement, or through actual editing. For an example of a discussion along these lines, resulting in "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying of the Light (Heroes).BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The only actual proof of improvability is actual improvement. "Surely there are sources" is an age-old bad argument in AfD. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually going to go with a stronger statement. First, I don't think any of the other statements made in that policy paragraph follow from the statement that "Wikipedia is a work in progress." They are all subsidiary decisions about how the "in progress" work is to be regulated. But here's the thing: The federal highway system is also a work in progress, but even when it was far less complete, there had to be this thing about making sure that the roads used by drivers actually were there. Wikipedia is only a work in progress where it is being worked on; everywhere else, it is the final product unless someone comes along and tries to change that. Which is to say, the current text is what people are reading now, and where it is inaccurate or misleading, it is so now. We are rightly tweaked in the media for preferring volume to accuracy.

The driving force behind the GNIS cleanup was first of all that huge swathes of these mass-created articles were wrong, not just that the places they referred to weren't notable. They went through deletion because typically we determined that the place's actual nature was some sort which, as a rule, there was no notability guideline which protected them from a serious test against GNG, but from time to time we found things which were in a different protected class (e.g. NRHP sites).

Obviously it's not going to affect this this case, but we're long past the point where we need to look at the subsidiary assertions of the policy and assess whether they are actually furthering the work or not. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of decade-plus-old stubs calls into question the assertion that eventually they will be turned into substantial enough articles, and on top of that the AfD pipeline is more often dominated by dubious biographies and other pieces of promotion than these cleanup efforts. We've already reached "eventually", and yet we aren't getting there. Mangoe (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick thought--while I agree there are many stub articles that should be deleted, I would also say that there are many stub articles that should not be deleted. I'm unsure if that contradicts with your point or if I'm merely confused (the latter is more likely). I close with a link to the essay do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A little late to this discussion, but I agree to some extent, and also partially disagree. There are certainly many stubs that could become excellent articles, consider [1] for instance. But at a certain point, mass creation of stubs with no intention to ever improve them becomes disruptive. Someone dropping hundreds or more stubs into mainspace is not helpful. And the problem with "incomplete or poorly written first drafts" is that our draftification policy has no teeth. Anyone can undo a draftification and then it can't be made a draft again, even if no improvements have been done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• A few things:

  We never reach "eventually", and never should expect to. The Encyclopdia is a work in progress - as all encyclopedias are. Printed encyclopdias just add yearbooks, or new editions. New articles and stubs are created on Wikipedia all the time.

  The removal of information, through editing or deletion, merely due to a single editor's subjective determination, is a waste of time of our volunteers, a valuable source we should never take for granted. "How much is enough" shouldn't even be a discussion to have.

  And the idea that a topic needs to earn being a standalone article is ridiculous. As far as a computer is concerned, it doesn't care if text is in a single scrolling page or in arbitrarily separate pages. Presentation should serve our readers, not some individual's subjective determination of how or in what format information should be presented. - jc37 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are distinct

3) When a Wikipedia project page refers to policy or policies and does not explicitly include guidelines or essays, it means only those principles accepted by community consensus as policies, rather than including guidelines or essays, per WP:POLICIES. This specificity clearly applies when a Wikipedia project page refers to policy or policies in one or more places, and more inclusively includes guidelines in others (e.g., WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I added rebuttal evidence at "There is no bright line between" policies and guidelines. This proposal was previously posted as an overturn recommendation by Jclemens at WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 23#Katie Nixon, where it was challenged by four other participants. Note his mention of excluding notability guidelines from closer review in an obvious contradiction of practice: as a group, they are among the most cited and evaluated pages at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I can see where the line (and there is one) between our core policies and subsequently developed guidelines often blurs - this is understandable especially at AfDs since WP:N is a guideline and this is the commonly used yardstick by which to examine a topic's notability. Some topic categories also have SNGs which should be considered at AfDs. But essays don't even come close to the same amount of consideration - and shouldn't. Often an essay is the creation of a very small number of editors and while it is useful on occasion, it should really be treated as auxiliary notes and assistance which are opinion and not the fermented/distilled/baked content of Ps & Gs. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that this has ever been an accepted norm. In casual conversation, talking about "WP policy" often implicitly assumes the set of all policies and guidelines. In other words, "policy" is often used as shorthand for "the rules". Project pages don't need to explicitly refer separately to both "policies" and "guidelines" in order for them to be bound by both policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines apply to all pages, all the time. There should never be a time when a policy and a guideline are in conflict with one another, and we need to ignore a guideline in favor of a policy. Even WP:POLCON says, "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice." In other words, if there is a conflict between a policy and a guideline, it's a problem with the policy and/or the guideline that needs to be fixed immediately, it's not an opportunity to use that conflict to win an argument on a technicality. One has to wonder if the specific guideline that this proposal is trying to find a way to ignore is GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline; guidelines apply generally, but exceptions are permitted by consensus. Policies are non-negotiable. Notability has remained a guideline ever since I've been here; I'll note Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Upgrade GNG to policy status.

As far as "policy" being interpreted as "policy and guidelines" I agree that this exists, and I believe that it is a problem in that it fails to distinguish between them and flattens what should be hierarchical.

I think you're still missing the point of the whole argument. When DGFA says something like "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." if policy means policy and guidelines it makes the meaning of the directive very, very different. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I naturally read Wikipedia project page as meaning something with a level of "official" status, e.g., not a userbox or a random reply in a Talk thread, even though these do technically appear on pages hosted by the Wikipedia project. In more casual conversation, editors may mix up the terms "policy", "guideline", and "essay", but When a Wikipedia project page refers to policy or policies, it means policy or policies. Essays are evidence that an opinion has been articulated, not that it enjoys any level of wider acceptance. The essay that claims the absence of a "bright line" coexists with one instructing us not to cite essays as if they were policies or guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

A small distinction: the first is linked prominently in a {{See}} at the top of WP:Policies and guidelines#Role (policy), while the second isn't linked from that policy page. It has consensus to be linked, and the link makes it more likely to be read and watched. (The watcher count isn't wildly different: 65 versus <30.) Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Can you give examples of the project pages you are referring to? BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See immediately above. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your quote from WP:DGFA, I don't believe that the intent is as you described. First, it goes on to state that Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. This is the exception that proves the rule; it allows guidelines to be suspended under exceptional circumstances, which means that under all other circumstances guidelines apply and arguments that contradict guidelines should be discounted.

Second, if your interpretation was correct it would result in notability guidelines having no more weight than an essay. This lack of weight doesn't match the effort the community has put into crafting the notability guidelines or the importance they believe they hold, and I believe that any proposal to turn the notability guidelines into essays would be overwhelmingly rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I said no such thing and reject that as a logical conclusion. Fact is, since notability IS a guideline, it CAN be overridden by consensus, even if that's a rare occurrence. Saying that it can doesn't imply that it often should, but overridability (is that a word?) is the distinction between policies and guidelines. Verifiability, to pick on a different policy for a change, cannot be overriden by local consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies; if you are not saying that closers cannot discount arguments that contradict guidelines, then can you clarify what you are saying?

In regards to your response, I think it is important to note that while guidelines can be overridden (as can policies per WP:IAR) this should only be under exceptional circumstances; I take that to mean those who support overriding them cannot simply !vote Delete, per WP:IAR; the encyclopedia is better if we don't have any articles related to platypuses, but instead need to justify why these circumstances are exceptional and could not be accounted for in guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Manual of style governs presentation, not content

4) The Wikipedia manual of style WP:MOS does not describe what content should be included or excluded from Wikipedia, but rather how content should be presented. As such, content not complying with the manual of style is not eligible for deletion solely on the basis of that style variance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd like some clarification as to whether this is aimed at commenters in deletion discussions, or closers of those discussions. If admins are actually deleting articles based only on MOS concerns, that's a problem, and one that arbcom could solve. If particpants in deletion discussions are making invalid arguments, the closer of the discussion can and should ignore them. The committee cannot legislate what comments are allowed or not in deletion discussions. --Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In response to User:Beeblebrox's comments - It is, unfortunately, becoming more and more common for closers to just rely on commenters' assertions (and really, just "vote-count" bullet pointed comments), when deciding which way to close a discussion rather than actually assess the entire discussion and current policy. So the problem seems to go in both directions, each feeding the other. - jc37 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing includes rewriting

5) Per WP:EDIT, editing, (sometimes referenced as "ordinary editing", e.g. at WP:DOM) includes any modification to the text of an article, to include being "rewritten or changed substantially" that does not require the use of administrator tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Why should this definition of editing, which apparently encompasses literally everything a non-admin can do to a page, be enshrined as a principle? WP:ATD clearly separates "editing" (WP:ATD-E) from the other ATDs, shouldn't that be an indication they are not all considered "ordinary editing"? JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The comment on editing is at WP:ATD and global in scope; it encompasses all of the subordinate alternatives--merging, redirecting, etc.--including those as simple as adding missing citations to an article. c.f. the similarly expansive list of alternatives at WP:PRESERVE, also part of our editing policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I didn't see this earlier, but, no it most definitely does not. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Essays are not to be weighted in deletion decisions

6) Per WP:DGFA (at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) administrators are to determine consensus in deletion discussions not "by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policies and guidelines (if any)." This excludes arguments based on essays, except to the extent that essays may correctly summarize actual policies and guidelines, and manual of style variance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Essays certainly can't overrule PAGs, but I think this proposal as written goes too far. If at AfD I write out a detailed explanation of my interpretation of policy and how it should apply to the discussion at hand, I would expect it to be given some weight if it's a reasonable view – even if the closer would have interpreted policy differently. If instead I wrote it in an essay and linked it at AfD, my view should be accorded the same level of weight. It shouldn't be down-weighted simply because it's in an essay and not spelled out explicitly in the discussion. (Can you see the perverse incentives that would arise if we did downweight those downweight those essays?) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a difference to be had here between the kinds of essays that L235 and several editors are talking about below - that is longer explanations about how policies and guidelines should be applied and essays that suggest specific notability standards for a topic area that don't have community consensus (obviously as they are an essay and not a guideline). An example of the first kind that is commonly linked to at AfD would be WP:THREE. An example of the later, which has now been deprecated by the supporting project, was NSOLDIER. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes and no. Some essays are simply one editor's personal feelings about something, others represent a strong community consensus, many are somewhere in between. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was shooting for with "except to the extent that essays may correctly summarize actual policies and guidelines". For example, WP:HAMMER is so well regarded hardly anyone even bothers citing it any longer, because it accurately reflects the underlying policies and guidelines. At the same time, there's recently been a discussion about whether WP:MANDY is at all in line with our BLP policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The function of essays is to summarize policies, guidelines, MOS variations, and other norms that have some level of consensus here. They are often used as shortcuts, so that an editor can quickly link to a popular viewpoint instead of having to type out a long explanation. Of course, essays can't override a policy or a guideline, but to say that "essays are not to be weighted in deletion decisions" is basically saying that admins must ignore certain types of speech in deletion discussions. This would directly lead to encouraging arguments at deletion discussions that we have long discouraged, per WP:ONLYESSAY. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary is necessarily creative, and essays can be and are used to push a particular point WP:NOTTVTROPES is a particularly good example, authored by one of the parties in this case, mainspaced two months ago, and used as a basis to argue for deletion of plenty of improvable IPC content. Essays which function as shorthand for established/customary process and an intro for newcomers, such as WP:ATA, are qualitatively different than essays created for purposes of achieving desired outcomes across multiple similar articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Essays come in a wide variety of quality levels. But I don't think that means the solution is to mandate that all comments including links to essays must be ignored by an admin closing a deletion discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Excluding essays entirely isn't the way to go about it, but "administrators are to determine consensus in deletion discussions not by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policies and guidelines (if any)" should be expanded upon. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that policies/guidelines are applied correctly, for example many of our notability SNGs simply tell us that a topic is "likely to meet GNG" or "SIGCOV sources are likely to exist", so in those cases "meets [relevant SNG]", while technically correct, is not sufficient to establish consensus to keep unless SIGCOV sources are actually provided. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamata Kanojia would be a prime example, where the closer mentioned "...strong policy based arguments, all in favour of keep" despite the fact that the article did not actually meet NSPORTS. I do think that the closer's statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Kausar, "Whilst I am entitled to give lesser weight to contributions that don't have basis in policy, I am not required to write them off entirely" should be addressed. At the very least, closers should be expected to discard !votes that directly contradict or misrepresent the letter of our policies and guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:ATA is an essay that is frequently given weight by closers. I mean, ATA is just a laundry list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say at AfD, and in some places its logic is very shaky. But if we pass this principle and decide it's got no weight, then out go WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT, which throws the AfD contributions of both TenPoundHammer and Johnpacklambert into a much better light.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There are two problems here. The first is that most references to essays are arguments; they are simply shorthand for the points presented in the essay itself. Therefore, second, it ought not to be presumed that those arguments are bad because they haven't been promoted to guidelines, which seems to me to be the intent of this principle. As an example, a bunch of us wrote the essay WP:GNIS because we discovered that this government-authored source was partly misunderstood and was also plagued with inaccuracies. Yet we still get the occasional response that "GNIS is a reliable government source" in AfDs on placenames in arguing that they should be kept, to which we generally reply, "that isn't so; place go read WP:GNIS." The fact that we have never tried to turn it into a guideline doesn't make it incorrect, and having to spell out all the material in the essay every time we come upon the issue is a time-waster for all involved. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

An alternative to essay links would be templates to subst, which would clutter discussions. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Essays can be important, in that it saves a commenter from restating the same thing over and over again in multiple discussions. If a commenter refers to an essay in their comment, then that is given weight as the perspective of the commenter. It isn't policy or guideline, so it wouldn't be given that sort of weight by the closer. So essays should not be completely discounted by a closer, but rather just treated for what they are - expressed opinions. - jc37 20:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternatives to Deletion

7) Deletion of content from Wikipedia is permitted for reasons articulated at WP:DEL#REASON, but one of the guiding principles of the deletion process is that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" WP:ATD. Thus, WP:ATD is a behavioral expectation for administrators closing deletion discussion, and Wikipedia consensus does not require that a particular alternative have been raised in the discussion for an administrator closing a deletion discussion to choose it as the outcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Are some people below actually suggesting that ATD is not policy? Because if the answer is yes, I'll explain why I disagree. But if the answer is no, then I would love more explanation of why ATD as a policy is merely a suggestion/recommendation at AfD rather than something that has wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow to quote WP:POLICIES. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea that at least one editor below is advancing that because ATD doesn't use words like must that it's some sort of suggestion is out of-line with other other policies. But that doesn't seem to be the main crux of discussion here for which I am glad. Instead the real discussion seems to be "If there is a viable ATD what obligation does a closer have in considering it" with two specific cases being when that ATD is not mentioned at all and when it is mentioned but is a minority position when counting !votes. As someone whose pre-ARBCOM largest admin area was closing AfDs, my thinking fairly closely aligns with Scottywong's, which is unsurprising to me given that he is the only person in this discussion who currently also closes AfDs. Closes should be about reflecting back the consensus of participants of that discussion, as weighted by appropriate policies and guidelines. If an admin reads a discussion with an eye to closing it and they feel there is a perspective that hasn't been considered they should either relist (with a note in the relist about what may need to be considered) or participate rather than introducing something new in the close (with a small IAR caveat). If an ATD has been suggested it's still possible to close delete, that is there can be a consensus that the ATD is not appropriate in that instance. But sometimes a minority position on ATD may be the consensus because it can also encompass concerns of keep and delete !voters. But again that circles back to the core idea: the job of the closer is to reflect back the consensus reached by the participants of the discussion not impose their own ideas. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is no "behavioral expectation". Whether ATDs are improvements is itself decided by consensus: if ATDs are not raised in the discussion, or if participants don't think they're improvements, it naturally cannot be concluded that they are improvements without arbitrary closes and supervotes. There is nothing in policy that requires ATDs be given special status or even brought up, if the participants disagree with it. Policy-based consensus is what counts, and for simplicity's sake it's best left at that. Avilich (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any policy backing for this position, or is it merely your preference? I confess, I'm not seeing a reason for having ATD as policy--which it is and has been for essentially ever--if there's no preference for it. Wikipedia's policy has always been if there's something to do besides deletion, prefer that. If you disagree, I'd like to understand on what policy basis you do so. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence backing your position. The WP:deletion process guideline says that "outcomes should reflect the rough consensus", with no mention whatsoever of ATDs. WP:DGFA gives essentially the same idea. WP:Deletion policy#ATD just lists the alternatives themselves, it most certainly doesn't require that any of them be implemented or even taken seriously ("tags can be added", "a page can be blanked and redirected", "could be merged"). Avilich (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ATD is policy. "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Editing is defined in proposed principle 5. ROUGHCONSENSUS expects policies to be implemented even if not numerically preferred. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ATD-E applies to content concerns, where other reasons for deletion aren't present. The only way "ATD is policy" would be applicable for disregarding !votes would be if someone was specifically arguing for deletion because they claim an article can't be merged or whatever when it actually clearly could. An admin could ignore that argument because it's factually incorrect. ATD does not empower closers to implement an outcome that wasn't discussed and is only a suggestion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ATD is policy. Closers are to implement policy. If AfD input fails to consider relevant and appropriate ATDs, they are not policy-based, and are appropriately accorded less weight by a policy-savvy closer. This is what ROUGHCONSENSUS is all about. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"Closers are to implement policy". Nope, only those that require some sort of action, which ATD does not. Avilich (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying "ATD is policy", but "list of ATDs on a policy page" != "considering all ATDs is required". Your reading of ATD would also license admins to delete based on their personal belief that the article met any of the reasons in DEL-REASON -- another list on a policy page -- regardless of what consensus said.

There is absolutely no requirement that each or any of the ATDs be addressed in an AfD, and zero policy-based evidence that a closer may implement them based on their own assessment of the article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I made the leap with you on admins deleting stuff based on their own personal belief. IAR deletions are a real thing, but speedy deletion criteria pretty much already cover the vast majority of circumstances in which an administrator is expected to act alone to fix a problem by deleting an article. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, there's no dispute that ATD is on the policy page, or that it governs aspects of the deletion process as a policy. What is in contention is what it means to say "ATD is a policy": there is no directive on WP:DELETION that suggests "all users considering deletion must exhaust all the ATDs before nominating/!voting/closing", or even that doing so is generally expected. And there is certainly not a suggestion that closers can override consensus and implement an ATD that was never discussed, the way they can for violations of core content policies. Both ATD and DEL-REASON read as informational rather than prescriptive. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with this comment from @Barkeep49. I think most of us are on the same page now? JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Avilich. ATD is just a list of options one can consider, no policy mandates they must be considered. And certainly not unilaterally implemented by a closer. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I need to spell it out more: every ATD is "[regular] editing" per principle 5. Therefore, any ATD is preferred to deletion, and thus if there's any legitimate ATD, deletion is, by policy, off the table. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If your proposed "principle 5" includes all ATDs, then why is "editing and discussion" in a separate section (ATD-E) from the other ATDs? There is still nothing in deletion policy remotely suggesting ATDs must be used regardless of whether there is consensus to delete. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, ATD is regular editing, but not every regular edit is an improvement, and deciding on that is the whole point of an AfD discussion, hence consensus. Again, ATD is carefully worded with "can" and "could", not "must", so the correct way to apply the policy is to simply acknowledge that ATDs exist, nothing else. Avilich (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Which is encompassed by the "absent a compelling reason to not do so" clause in my proposed remedy. Obviously, if an ATD is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, but when a non-notable book from a notable author is deleted, it is expected that the closer will redirect the title to the author regardless if anyone brought up the possibility in the deletion discussion or not. That is the alternative expected by policy, and I'm unclear why this is at all at issue: we are here to build an enecylopedia (principle 1) and each sort of ATD reflects better encyclopedia-building than bare deletion, which is why they're policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What is "compelling" is up to the participants, not supervoters. The former cannot be forced to state from the outset every single thing they don't agree with, but instead should be allowed to simply go with what seems most natural. There's no conflict between encyclopedia-building and deletion, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed. Avilich (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

When an appropriate ATD exists, deletion is not encyclopedia-building. That's what the policies say. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I strongly dispute that preferring any alternative to deletion is policy, and it is commonly the case that articles are kept because, supposedly, they can be "improved" rather than because they have been improved. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Your dispute is at odds with principles 2 and 5. Do you have an issue with either of them, or just this conclusion that I believe directly follows? Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Principle 5 is vacuous, except insofar as it conflates the real-world senses of writing and editing into a single thing. That may or may not present its own issues of faulty methodology, but since we are actually referring to the real-world sense of editing when we discuss deletion or its alternatives, that's not important. I've already taken on Principle 2 above, but even so, the processes we already have show that the various Alternatives themselves must be justified. Redirects may be deleted; mergers, if controversial, may be required to be discussed. Besides the choice redirection or merger needs to be justified in their own rights, and not merely because the article name would be preserved. We ought not to be "keeping" references when the references are bad. Mangoe (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If a closer believes there is a suitable WP:ATD, they should !vote, rather than closing the discussion. There cannot be a consensus for an ATD without discussion of the alternative, both as a general principle and because it doesn't give editors who might oppose the proposed alternative time to express their opposition. BilledMammal (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

ROUGHCONSENSUS emphasizes getting the right, policy-compliant discussion rather than simply nose counting. If everyone says "delete" but there's a redirect target and a closer chooses to redirect, a closer saying "redirect" rather than closing as redirect would be the right thing to do iff the next admin who comes along will privilege the ATD as the policy-based outcome even if it's not numerically superior. Are we there? I'm not thinking so. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

If we aren't there then the solution isn't requiring closers to supervote, the solution is a finding of fact that discussions have been closed based on nose counting rather than strength of arguments.

So far, we have had evidence presented suggesting that some discussions have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus" based on nose counting, and that evidence would support a narrower finding of fact focused on that result. However, if you can present evidence that suitable alternatives to deletion are rejected by the closer based on nose counting rather than adherence to policy then that would support producing a broader finding of fact. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49 as you can see from this discussion, there are certain editors who believe that ATDs only apply if they are raised in a deletion discussion and/or have numerical consensus within that deletion discussion. I think the discussion here in this section is a fair representation of those I've had with these editors and others elsewhere. The reason I brought this discussion up is that I believe those interpretations are improper and needlessly contribute to a win-vs-lose mentality at AfDs. If we were all on the same page with what the policy says, I believe it would lead toward more collegiality. For example, if 6 deletes, two keeps, and one merge is closed as a merge, that incentivizes editors to propose ATDs, which, in the hands of experienced closers, should yield more encyclopedic results than just the boolean of keep or delete. I believe ATDs merit the same priority as other policies: if 23 people say "keep it!" and one editor conclusively proves it's a copyvio, it gets deleted, because policies trump numbers in deciding outcomes. If 23 editors said "delete it" and one editor said "Actually, we can redirect it..." a closer choosing to redirect would likely find their actions questioned at DRV. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That assumes any proposed ATD is always appropriate! How is it remotely "more encyclopedic" for an outcome that would normally require actual discussion, e.g. at WP:PROPMERGE or WP:RFD, to bypass consensus if it's raised at AfD? Just because a merge is technically possible doesn't mean it is automatically the correct option; and if it's not automatically correct then how can it be unilaterally imposed by a closer? JoelleJay (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with boolean logic or whatever. To use your example, if a discussion has 6 deletes, 2 keeps and 1 merge, and someone wants to close it as merge, the correct reason is that the merge voter made a compelling case for preserving the content and copying it elsewhere, and not simply because "merge" is listed as an ATD. Avilich (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: - can you give some examples of this? I believe it is relatively common for closers to implement uncontroversial ATD's despite !votes for those ATD's being a minority, and I believe it is rare for those closures to be brought to DRV.

As for ATDs only apply if they are raised in a deletion discussion; that is not my position. My position is that closers cannot supervote; if there is an alternative that the closer believes is better supported by policy but has not been discussed, then the closer should raise that option instead of closing, because consensus is not determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The "win-vs-lose mentality" that you describe is at least in part the underlying reason we're here - people getting emotional because of deletion discussions. Anything that helps to resolve that part of the issue is probably helpful - but then I'm generally a proponent of ATD these days unless there's an overwhelming reason to delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Giving considerable extra weight to merge or redirect when closing AfDs does not have consensus. Consensus was established for equal weight at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (2011). I have found no discussion that overturned it. It was listed at WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines and WP:Centralized discussion and had many participants. WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE were mentioned explicitly throughout the prompt. I plan to present this as part of my evidence. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And yet the deletion policies say something different. Why is that? If I recall that discussion correctly, it was part of the evolution of AfD towards being able to implement non keep or delete outcomes. But it's been eleven and a half years, and I'd rather rely on the current wording of policies than a closely but not entirely related discussion from over a decade ago. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The RfC outcome differs from your interpretation of ATD, which is facing substantial opposition here. The version of ATD at the end of 2010, before the RfC, is quite similar to today. The diff to today is a bit messy, but I see no major content changes to the ATD section. Editing and Discussion were combined, Tagging was split from them, draft space was added to Incubation, and the ATD-* shortcuts were added. Regarding the discussion's age, I acknowledge that WP:Consensus#Consensus can change (policy), but it doesn't expire spontaneously, as far as I know. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I submitted Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that WP:ATD isn't part of a policy. That's a straw man. What we're arguing is that it means no more than the plain text on the page.

"A variety of tags can be added to note the problem." "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." "Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace". "Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. They may be copied there using transwiki functionality before considering their merger or deletion." Emphasis, obviously, all mine.

The word "must" appears nowhere in WP:ATD, except in the not-relevant-here sentence "Incubation must not be used as a 'backdoor to deletion'." Nor does any synonym. Even "should" - which is very much not the same thing - never appears unqualified, except in "Deletion should not be used for archiving a page." Editing should only be done instead of deletion "if editing can improve the page". Nowhere is it so much as implied that editing can always improve a page if it's not explicitly argued against. Do you want it to become common practice to cut and paste "Delete. Unsalvageably pov ad, no sources except their own press releases, abjectly fails WP:GNG. {{Tagging won't help, no sources exist. Don't merge into a list, it'll be unsourceable there too. Don't redirect to the generic article for their product, it's not and won't be mentioned there and that's still a second-place SEO prize. Don't draftify, no one's ever worked on it in good faith, and nobody's said they would. Don't transwiki, not even Wikiquote wants this.}}"? Because this is how you get that. Forcing one side of a debate to preemptively argue against positions nobody's advanced is abhorrent.

Whether a page can be improved instead of being deleted is inherently subjective. It has to be resolved by the consensus-building process, every time. If everyone says "delete" but there's an inappropriate redirect target and a closer chooses to redirect, that closer shouldn't be closing debates. If they say "redirect" rather than closing as redirect, the next admin who comes along should assess whether that position has consensus, and if it doesn't and they think it should be redirected too, then they should say "redirect" too.

The biggest problem with AFD is that there's not enough participation - so much so, that they regularly get mechanically relisted for three or four weeks - by people who are experienced enough that they should be commenting on them - and then still get closed as either no consensus npasr or soft delete. And the more it gets treated as a closer's suggestion box, to be ignored in favor of whichever section of policy their political party favors, the more you discourage people from participating. —Cryptic 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

What part of "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." is unclear? Should is obviously not must, but you're ignoring the first sentence of the whole WP:ATD policy section--the one that guides how the specific instances are to be interpreted. Obviously ATD is not a must: If we find a copyvio, we don't merge it anywhere. Like most things on Wikipedia, it relies on common sense to work effectively. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Who decides whether it's an improvement? —Cryptic 05:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In a perfect world? Everyone discusses reasonable ATDs throughout the discussion. Bottom line? The closer already does, even if simply by dismissing the possibility and closing without serious consideration of ATDs. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Should is obviously not must, but you're ignoring the first sentence of the whole WP:ATD policy section That's the first sentence of the ATD section WP:ATD-E. It doesn't govern all of ATD. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The crux of the issue here is: when considering the deletion of an article, who decides whether there is a viable alternative to deletion? When it comes to deletion discussions, Jclemens' proposal appears to be arguing that the closing admin has an obligation to ensure that the voters didn't miss any ATDs, and if the closing admins believes they did, then the closing admin is obligated to ignore the consensus of the discussion and implement that ATD instead. I think this view is highly problematic. ATD is not just a policy that applies to administrators, it applies to everyone, including editors arguing at an AfD, or editors applying a PROD template to an article (i.e. even the users that aren't directly pressing the delete button). When it comes to closing deletion discussions, the closing admin's job is to judge consensus, and trust that the editors who participated in the discussion considered everything and got it right. The closing admin is not expected to second-guess the discussion's participants and make judgments about whether or not they considered all alternatives to deletion. An admin shouldn't be viewed as a "super-editor" who knows more than "regular editors" and can override their judgments. Just because an editor doesn't explicitly say, "I have considered all possible alternatives to deletion, but ultimately concluded that the article should be deleted" doesn't mean that they didn't consider all alternatives, and we shouldn't assume that they didn't. If everyone votes to delete an article and the closing admin thinks there is a viable redirect target, they should delete the article, and then create a redirect in its place. Similarly, if 10 editors vote to delete and one editor votes to redirect, and the closing admin finds consensus to delete, then the other editor is free to create a redirect in its place, which requires no admin tools. And, even if 10 editors vote to delete and one editor votes to merge, and the closing admin finds consensus to delete, I can't imagine that any admin wouldn't be open to restoring the article to userspace if an editor asked because they wanted to attempt to merge some content. There's a difference between finding consensus to merge (which essentially forces editors to find a way to merge the articles) and finding consensus to delete but otherwise allowing an editor to do what they think is right with the content. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Closers are expected to use common sense; they get trusted with the tools for a reason, and a failure at ATD can always be challenged at DRV. However, you are mistaking how consensus works with respect to policies: If 10 editors say "delete" and one says "merge" and the merge is evaluated by the closer as an appropriate ATD, the consensus of the discussion is to merge the content, because if there is an appropriate ATD, the opinions of the deletion voters aren't policy-based. That's what WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is all about: policy basis, rather than head count. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the 10 delete voters have a valid (policy- and/or guideline-based) rationale, the closing admin should assume that these 10 voters considered alternatives to deletion and didn't find any that applied to the article, which is why they ultimately concluded that it should be deleted. Just because the 11th voter suggested a merge doesn't mean that we can or should immediately invalidate all of the other valid opinions by the other voters. What you're suggesting is that we should assume that anyone that votes "delete" necessarily did not consider alternatives to deletion, and therefore their votes can be overridden by anyone voting redirect, merge, etc. Essentially, this proposal boils down to: "assume bad faith by anyone that votes to delete an article". —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This seems to take the ethos that "consensus is not about counting noses" and run so far with it that it turns the idea of consensus itself upon its head. XOR'easter (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

If 10 editors say "delete" and one !votes to "merge", then it's quite possible that the solitary "merge" !voter is operating under a mistaken sense of what sources are appropriate (e.g., mistaking churned press releases for independent coverage, as happens all the time when topics get 15 minutes of pop-science media fame). Presuming that it's clear that the "delete" !voters saw the same sources, then there is no policy-based alternative to deletion: the consensus of the participating editors is that the content can't be made compliant with basic policies and thus shouldn't be preserved anywhere. That's the likely presumption, too, since the superficial and non-independent sources offered in such cases are typically whatever Google turns up, which everyone can see from the beginning of the discussion. Now, if a "merge" or "keep" !voter comes along in the seventh day with new sources, it's fair for an admin to relist the discussion so it can gather more input. But just putting a "merge" on the table doesn't negate the opinions of all those who advised deletion, just because we have a general preference against throwing things out until we have to. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

because if there is an appropriate ATD, the opinions of the deletion voters aren't policy-based Since when is DEL-REASON not a policy?! JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion processes perform poorly when overloaded

8) Deletion processes such as articles for deletion function best when a finite number of articles are evaluated by the community at once, such that editors may spend more time per article proposed for deletion. This is simply the committee's previous principle at WP:FAIT applied to deletion nominations rather than edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would suggest the more appropriate principle is "Wikipedia process perform poorly when overloaded". We manage to get a lot done but in the end are a volunteer project and there are any number of places where demand for that process may overwhelm the volunteer capacity for it. The solution to such processes being overwhelmed is going to be different in different cases, though the concept that I can infer from the discussion below that a similar solution may be appropriate when creation and deletion processes are overwhelmed is an interesting one. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes. While group nominations can be appropriate in some situations, if you feel a large group or set of articles should all be deleted (or similar) it is much better to have an explicit, well-advertised discussion about the group or set as a whole in an appropriate location rather than by nominating them for deletion individually. Iff the group discussion arrives at a consensus that all of the group of articles are not encyclopaedic then nominating them as a single group or a few closely related groups may be appropriate; if the consensus is that some or most are not encyclopaedic then nominating them individually or in small groups may be appropriate - as long as editors are given sufficient time to analyse each article/group individually. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe this principle is appropriate. First, it moves the issue; the fait accompli occurs when large numbers of non-notable articles are created, as such creations are extremely difficult to reverse. Second, it would increase the difficulty of reversing those creations, thus expanding the existing WP:FAIT issue, as it would suggest that there is a limit to the number of articles that can be nominated for deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right (any type of action can be a fair accompli), and there is no deadline. There is no limit on the number of articles that can be nominated for deletion, but there should be a limit on the number of simultaneous discussions on similar articles. It is reasonable to require those in favour of keeping an article to find suitable sources to demonstrate notability in 7 days, it is not reasonable to require them to find sources for 20 articles in 7 days. The line between reasonable and unreasonable is variable and fuzzy, depending on things like how accessible sources are for the topic, e.g. sources for contemporary American entertainers are much easier to find online than sources for 18th century German poets so the reasonable number of simultaneous AfDs for contemporary American entertainers is greater than for 18th century German poets. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue with any proposal to restrict the number of nominations that can be made is that it increases the issue we currently have with editors creating articles on non-notable topics, and it increases the issue with the tens or hundreds of thousands of articles we currently have on non-notable topics.

If there is an issue with the deletion process, whether related to WP:FAIT or not, then it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't make the past and current article creation issues worse, or those issues need to be resolved first. BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with that at all. I'm much more concerned with us not throwing away potentially usable content than I am with making it easy to create articles; our primary problem is not that we lack enough articles, it's that we have too many that are important enough but need serious work. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you believe it is so important to throw away potentially huge amounts of work because some subset of it might not be notable? The creation of lots of articles on non-notable topics is an issue, but the deletion of lots of articles on notable topics is an equally important but more urgent problem given that it is far easier to delete than to create. There is no deadline, so it is always better to proceed with caution - it is more important to get the right result than to get a quick result. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In fact, it is far easier to create than to delete. For example, the 19 Nielsens. Lugnuts created these articles in less than an hour, with only minor differences between them.

To delete those articles, I would need to spend more than an hour doing WP:BEFORE searches, determining whether a redirect could be an appropriate result, and writing the nomination. On top of that is the time that other editors will need to spend !voting on the nominations and doing their own searches for sources, as well as the time that the closer will need to spend determining consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominating something for deletion on the basis of a policy or guideline that is in the middle of an active discussion is never going to be a good use of anybody's time. Once consensus regarding that is clear, then is the time to assess articles against it. Small batches of similar articles are fine, as long as you explain why they are similar enough. If you want to do more than a few, then start a discussion about the class and the commonalities first. No, the articles should probably not have been batch created, especially not when the notability guidelines are unclear or under active discussion, but once they have been created there is no justification for hastily deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that was the point of BilledMammal's comment. He was just demonstrating how lopsided the time and effort needed to create versus delete an article is. A microstub on a real but non-notable topic will just about always take longer to delete than to create. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to put a speed limit on deletion, then what is the limit? How many articles can a single editor nominate for deletion per hour, per day, per week? If the AfD log for a particular day gets more than 100 articles nominated for deletion, shall we just auto-protect the page and say, "sorry, we're full for today, please nominate your article for deletion tomorrow"? While it's admittedly true that deletion processes work better at lower volumes, there is no practical way to enforce a speed limit without causing much bigger problems. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I favor a situation where if an editor nominates an article for deletion, and the article is kept and suggestions for improvement (e.g., sources) appear in the AfD, the nominating editor would be required to implement the improvements before making more nominations. Thus, no rate limiting at all on people who AfD only things guaranteed to get deleted. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That is rather extreme, in my opinion. Good luck finding consensus for that. The problem is that while Wikipedia deletion processes do work better when they're not overloaded, I (and many others) believe that Wikipedia as a whole works better when deletion of inappropriate articles happens swiftly. Putting an artificial speed limit on deletion or imposing sentences on editors that nominate an article and fail to find a consensus for deletion only serves to slow down this important clean-up process for the project. Imagine an editor stumbles upon a terrible article on a clearly non-notable band, and they can't nominate it for deletion yet because they haven't served out their sentence from the previous nomination. How would it help Wikipedia in any way to allow garbage to pile up? The problem with most of Jclemens' proposals is that they seem to approach Wikipedia from the perspective that deletion is inherently a bad thing. That is not a view that is shared by all (or even most) editors. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think most (not all) of Jclemens' proposals are best summarised as the kernel of a good idea taken too far towards the extreme, while much (not all) of the opposition to them is too far towards the opposite extreme. Deletion is not inherently a bad thing, but deleting the wrong things is. Creating low quality articles is not inherently a bad thing, but creating too many of them is. Getting rid of garbage is a good thing, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a bad thing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Well put. As always, balance is the key. However, I don't find an abundance of balance in most of these proposals. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As I explicitly said above there is no hard and fast limit, but if an editor is regularly nominating a dozen articles for deletion an hour then I have serious doubts that they are doing an adequate WP:BEFORE. The total number of articles nominated in a single hour/day/whatever is not relevant, what matters is the number of simultaneous deletion discussions about similar topics and what is reasonable is not something that can ever be expressed as a single number because it depends on the degree of similarity, the accessibility of (potential) sources (see my earlier comment), the quality of the nominated articles (it's much easier and quicker to asses for notability the online English-language sources already provided in 5 short stubs than it is a single unsourced (but plausibly sourceable) article about say a 1980s Peruvian politician). It all boils down to giving other editors a reasonable chance to find sources and/or otherwise improve every article nominated for deletion. An article about a 1980s Peruvian politician is unlikely to have significant overlap of editors with an article about theoretical mathematics but is quite likely to have overlap with an article about a 1980s Peruvian army general so in this situation you should be more cautious about nominating another an article about a Peruvian notable in the 1980s than you need to be about nominating another article about theoretical mathematics, and you should be more cautious about nominating the latter than you need to be about nominating an article about tigers in Tamil Nadu. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree, but I can't see a way to formalize this into some kind of rule. It's not possible to determine if an editor followed WP:BEFORE simply by analyzing the speed with which they nominated articles. An editor could have spent hours digging around for sources on 5 different articles, and then nominated all 5 articles at the same time. We can't simply look at the timestamps and say, "hey, you nominated 5 articles for deletion within a span of 5 minutes, clearly you didn't follow WP:BEFORE on any of them." —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed you can't look at any period of time in isolation, you need to look at patterns of behaviour over time (similar to what I did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence/Analysis of speedy deletions by Thryduulf). 5 articles in 5 minutes could indicate either no WP:BEFORE or the result of a combined WP:BEFORE on all five articles - the more closely related the articles are the more plausible it is that it's the latter (e.g. 5 footballers who played for the same team at the same time is highly likely that a combined BEFORE has been done; 5 people whose only connection is being sportspeople and a combined BEFORE is much less plausible). Of course you also need to look at the actual nominations - 5 articles nominated in 5 minutes where they all have a detailed rationale that notes what the nominator has found and not found is far superior to five articles in 50 minutes which only say "Doesn't meet NFOOTY".

As I've said, you can't summarise this into some kind of bright line rule, but that doesn't mean it isn't an important standard of behaviour that editors should seek to abide by. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• There's custom and practice we could usefully consider here. When presented with a workload that exceeds our processes' capacity to cope, the community has passed special provisions, such as speedy deletion criteria X1 and X2 which were passed at short notice using accelerated RfCs (link). Other speedy deletion or speedy redirection criteria could exist.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a largely hypothetical problem. It gets used against larger group nominations, perhaps with some justification, but even at the peak of the California cleanup, when there were a dozen nominations a day, we had no problem managing that. And as @Scottywong: says, mass creation is a much bigger overloading of the systems than attempts at mass deletion. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an important point: concerns are always expressed that a clean-up campaign will "overload" the deletion processes. For example, you see this in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the changes to WP:NOLY. As far as I know this has never actually happened though. What *HAS* happened is quality-checking processes being overwhelmed by mass-creation of articles in what is anyway a violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT. We saw this with Carlossuarez46's GNIS/Iranian stubs, we saw this with Ruigeroeland's copyvios, we saw this with Mr. Blofeld's Geonet Names System stubs, there's a bunch of other mass-creators I could name here too. These mass-created non-notable (or otherwise 'bad') articles then stay on Wikipedia permanently as there is no way of cleaning them up.

Mass creation is the root problem. Enforce WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT. FOARP (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Closing administrators should ignore irrelevant arguments in deletion discussions

1) Administrators closing deletion discussions are encouraged to carefully avoid assigning inappropriate weight to arguments solely or substantially based on manual of style compliance or citation of essays.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This feels like just restating existing policy. We're here to examine the behavior of individuals, not to "fix XFD" which is well outside the committee's authority. --Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is completely out of scope. With very few exceptions, ArbCom decisions cannot bind people who are not party to the case; you cannot ask ArbCom to impose restrictions on all administrators (effectively creating policy by fiat.) If you think specific administrators are ignoring policy, add them as parties as individuals. If you think most administrators are ignoring policy, then that would generally indicate that your interpretation of policy is in the minority and lacks consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Per Aquillion. This isn't within ArbCom's power. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom can encourage anything that makes sense and is in line with policy. Obviously, given the proposed wording or other reasonable alternatives, this guidance lacks any direct force--no blocks or logs--but rather prefers a gentler, guiding hand to keep practice in line with policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This is already outlined in ROUGHCONSENSUS, where admins are encouraged to discount !votes that aren't compliant with P&Gs. This should of course also include arguments invoking inaccurate, mischaracterized, or incomplete interpretations of guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Policies, not policies and guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts: Administrators who close discussions should do so as they see fit. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to bring it up on the admin's user talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Like a !SuperVote? Why bother with AfDs at all then? Or guidelines even? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify--Administrators who close discussions should do so as they see fit based on the content of the discussion. I apologize for the confusion I created, I never meant to state that closers should ignore the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Still sounds awfully like a !Supervote. An admin's close must reflect the AfD discussion and the only caveat/discretion is that they must do so with regard to appropriate policies and guidelines. If they're not familiar with or not comfortable with the appropriate Ps/Gs they shouldn't be closing those AfDs - not even to clear a backlog. The suggested remedy here shouldn't need to be stated. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying (and failing) to articulate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You aren't failing to articulate your thoughts. It is obvious what you meant, which is that administrators should close AfD discussions based on their assessment of consensus. I'm confident that most people assumed you weren't talking about a "!supervote". Kurtis ^(talk) 14:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Closing administrators shall routinely implement alternatives to deletion

2) Administrators closing deletion discussions are expected to select alternatives to deletion, if any exist, absent a compelling reason to not do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As above. It is completely outside of ArbCom's purview to give broad, general instructions to administrators on the interpretation and enforcement of policy; they cannot grant this remedy. They can sanction individual administrators for ignoring policy, and can even use findings of fact that strongly suggest specific things they'd sanction individual administrators for in the future, but they are not able to give instructions to all administrators, at once, by fiat. You could potentially request this, with minor tweaks, as a finding of fact to justify sanctions against a specific administrator who routinely violates it, but you cannot ask for it as a remedy. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Did this go out of style at some point after I left the committee? I confess, I do not regularly follow arbitration currently, but reminding people of policy was well within the customary behavior of ArbCom. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This "remedy" isn't anything but an attempt to have ArbCom create policy, which it can't do. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think this is something that should happen, then you need to propose it as a policy. I personally don't think you would find it would gain consensus, although lesser things like "if there is no consensus between deletion and an alternative to deletion, then the alternative should, in the absence of a clear reason not to, be applied by default" and "if an alternative to deletion is suggested late in a discussion that otherwise has a weak to moderate consensus for deletion but gets little attention then the discussion should normally be relisted so it can be further considered." might, so it could be worth workshopping them (the wording is terrible) and bringing as proposals to see if there is community consensus for them, but even these are not something that is within arbcom's purview. Arbcom cannot and will not create policy, the closest it can come is suggesting that the community should consider creating a policy to cover a given area. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It already is a policy. Or rather, it is the result of multiple parts of our deletion policy. All I ask is that the committee take the opportunity to point it out. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if this was something that was within the scope of ArbCom to do, I disagree with this. In a deletion discussion like AfD, the discussion participants are required to consider alternatives to deletion. If a participant votes to delete, that implies that they found no viable alternatives to delete (unless we're going to assume bad faith that they know an alternative exists but chose to vote for deletion anyway). The closing admin's job is to judge consensus. Unless there are serious problems with the rationale of delete voters, or unless there is evidence that delete voters intentionally didn't consider alternatives to deletion for some reason, the closing admin should assume that alternatives to deletion were considered by editors voting to delete, and should avoid second-guessing the participants or assuming bad faith. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is confusing to me. If an admin closes as "delete" they should seek an alternative? Or if they close as "keep" they should seek an alternative? Or no consensus? Closed is closed, and anyone can seek an alternative to deletion if they want to.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn't a consensus of !voters to delete already a "compelling reason" not to take an alternative action? XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is another make-work bureaucratic proposal on the one hand, and an invitation to supervote on the other. Administrators should not be making up their own arguments outside the discussion process; they should be assessing what is written by the participants; likewise the latter should not be forced to discuss every possible alternative when history shows that they won't be taken. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Closers are meant to think about the discussions they close in the light of policy, and you'll find WP:ATD right near the top of the deletion policy, where it's been for a very long time. If during an AfD someone proposes a reasonable, workable alternative to deletion, then the closer needs to upweight their suggestion in the close. But in my view it's the AfD participants who should exhaust exhaust the alternatives to deletion. It's not actually the closer's role to do that. In other words, if Wikipedians reach a thoughtful, considered consensus to delete, then it's not for the closer to undermine that with the closer's own interpretation of ATD. I offer no opinion on whether it's Arbcom's role to say this.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It may be helpful if I link some relatively recent community thought on this.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    • That's subtly different than what Jclemens seems to be proposing. Sure, if one or more participants in an AfD suggests a valid alternative to deletion (like redirect, merge, etc.), and there are no significant, valid objections by the other editors, the closing admin certainly has the option of closing the AfD in favor of that alternative. However, what Jclemens seems to be suggesting (unless I'm misinterpreting) is that closing admins have the obligation to exhaustively search for and implement any conceivable alternative to deletion, even if none of the AfD participants voted that way or mentioned it in any way. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Personally, I wouldn't characterize that as "subtly" different. I think it's bigly different.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Outside ArbCom's purview, but without waiving that objection, it's also against WP:CON. Admins need to implement the consensus at a debate, not unilaterally decide that the consensus is wrong and should be something else. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Thryduulf

Proposed principles

Accuracy is more important than speed

1) In matters of deletion, it is more important to reach the right result than it is to reach a result quickly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thryduulf why did you write this principle only in relation to deletion, where as with FAIT you note both creation and deletion at various points? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The speed at which we need to reach a result varies on a continuum from attack pages, through copyvios and undersourced biographies of living people, down to biographies of people who're no longer alive, before we get to the kind of album-tracks-that-were-never-released-as-singles articles where we can ethically sacrifice speed on the altar of accuracy.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In all of those situations it's still most important to reach the right result. The right result for attack pages and copyvios is deletion - but it is important that we first determine it is an attack page/copyvio. When it is obvious we speedy delete the page, when it isn't we spend more time checking, removing attack portions/blanking suspected copyvios where appropriate before a deletion discussion. It is important that we delete copyvios as soon as we are certain that it is a copyvio but it is equally important that we don't delete things as copyvios that are not copyvios, and the same goes for every other sort of deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here. In almost every case, deletion is a safe result, and while it may be inaccurate in terms of the meta-decision of worthiness of inclusion, deletion is never inaccurate WRT content. This is really the burden of work issue under a different guise: it is OK to write lots of crap stubs, but people tryi9ng to clean them up have to do the research which the creators didn't bother with. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strenuously disagree with this per the above. This varies contextually; for pages that were eg. mass-produced using a script and have had no significant edits (or have even never had a manual edit), I think it's absurd to suggest that there is some requirement for a slow deliberative process. Nothing is lost by deleting an article like that, since it could be effortlessly recreated by running the script that originally created it. Articles with more history require more deliberation, but those are not generally the sorts of articles that this discussion focuses on. I'd also argue extreme caution for anything that would functionally make it easier to create large numbers of articles than to delete them; a lack of parity is a problem because it risks leading to WP:FAIT situations where people can create tons of articles that clearly fail our notability guidelines, effectively rendering those guidelines moot because no scalable way of challenging them on that exists. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  For pages that were mass produced by script it is still more important to get the correct result than a fast result. In that situation though the way to determine what that answer is is to have a discussion about all the articles collectively (or sets of them, depending on the specifics) rather than flooding AfD with individual nominations. If there is truly nothing worth saving about those articles then consensus will emerge to delete them all (or specific sets of them), possibly as a temporary speedy deletion criterion, possibly as a small number of large AfDs. Consensus could of course be that all or most should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• We've tried. When we put up group nominations of dubious places, rather often the nomination fails because one or two members may have to be excepted and soon enough someone calls for a procedural close to force each to be nominated separately. We have managed to get a few mass creations undone but again, if there's much resistance we're back to individual nominations. Also, the notion that there's much of a loss in deleting a poorly sourced stub is not credible, in my view. Really, it would be less work overall if such an article were to be summarily deleted and then recreated as a properly sourced article with a clear claim to notability. As far as I know, only one article I've written or heavily edited has ever been deleted, and in that case it was an attempt which I had reason to believe was likely to fail; I have almost never written stubs, and I almost always leave a clear claim to notability in the lead. It is far more of an issue that an article be "inaccurately" kept or redirected than if it be deleted, because the former can only be remedied through another trip through AfD, whereas the latter can be fixed the way it should have been done in the first place: by writing an article that is obviously not a candidate for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. If a deleted topic is truly notable and encyclopedic, wouldn't it be recreated at some point anyway? It's not like Wikipedia is the only repository for such information (it explicitly must not be), so if it's actually worthy of a standalone there will be enough interest in the subject for someone else to write it. And it's not like the articles we're talking about here contain such incisive prose treatment that their deletion would be an immeasurable loss to scholarship; most are at best a few lines and a template auto-filled from a database. JoelleJay (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I had been going through the Olympic gymnasts articles, the vast majority of which were created by Lugnuts, because the information in many of them is factually incorrect. He did not know how gymnastics is competed at the Olympic level, so was crediting athletes with achieving results that they did not actually get. I've taken a break, pending the results of this case, because of the sheer number and the time sink of making sure the changes I make reflect the actual results. For example, an athlete who only performed on one apparatus in the qualifications round was credited as competing in three events (apparatus, team, and individual all around- which requires the athlete to perform on all apparatuses in qualification to qualify). Events are the team all around, individual all around, and the 4 (women's) or 6 (men's) apparatus finals, so saying an athlete competed on 6 events when they didn't move past qualifications. So, not only do these articles need to be reviewed to see if they meet GNG, they also need to be reviewed to ensure that they are accurate if they are kept. I don't know enough about the topics other articles cover to confidently make the edits if they are needed. ETA: Eep, wrong kind of accuracy. Afheather (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Along the same lines, just in the last day we have come across a group of cookie cutter stubby articles on "rocks" and "ledges" in the waters of Massachusetts. Never mind the notability: many if not most of these were factually incorrect, claiming "barren rocks" where navigational charts stated that the feature is always submerged. Accuracy in writing is more important than accuracy in deletion. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think it's that I don't see (or at least don't perceive) in the evidence that rushing to create as many articles as possible is the motivation for creating the articles in the manner they are. I don't think anyone disagrees that articles can be published as soon as they are ready for mainspace, regardless of how long it takes for that to happen, the disagreement is about what constitutes being ready. In contrast the perception I get from the deletion side is that "there is a firehose pointed right at us, if we don't bail out [by deleting the 'garbage'] quickly enough we will be underwater". In contrast, both sides perceive the other's actions as being a fait accompli (intentionally or otherwise). A parallel principle to this one for creation (I can't think of a wording that succinctly encompasses both, "result" in particular feels wrong for creation but spot on for deletion) would be appropriate if the goal is to have principles for all aspects that could be relevant in a situation like this in future, but I'm not sure it would be if the goal is to have principles only for those aspects that are actually relevant to this specific situation (both are valid approaches). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with whoever said that this should be expanded beyond just mass deletion. I would suggest it be expanded to categorization as well. Furthermore, it's toothless without remedies. pbp 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors must be given a reasonable opportunity to improve an article

2) It is important that editors have a reasonable opportunity to find sources and/or make other improvements to an article that has been nominated for deletion. Large numbers of concurrent deletion nominations in a topic area can make this harder.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Giving reasonable opportunity to improve articles is one reason why deletion nominations last 7 days. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Fait accompli (1)

3) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits or nominations, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present those with different opinions with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the changes or nominations. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

How is nominating lots of articles a fait accompli situation? I understand that mass nominations can be disruptive for other reasons. And I understand why normal editing can create a fait accompli situation, because it can be more hassle than it's worth to revert 10,000 mass edits or whatever. But initiating deletion discussions seem very different from that situation? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Fait_accompli. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does "edits" include the act of creating new articles? If so, it would be preferable to explicitly state that. In order to have balance, it's important to note that both high volumes of deletion nominations and high volumes of inappropriate article creation can constitute a fait accompli, and are equally disruptive. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with ScottWong per my comments above. It needs to be emphasized that creating many articles at once is also a potential WP:FAIT situation, and that to reduce the risk of that it is necessary to allow people to challenge them at the same rate that they are created. --Aquillion (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion @Scottywong creating articles is covered under my proposal #Fait accompli (3). Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@L235: Imagine a scenario in which a large number of articles (say 20) about a similar topic are all nominated for deletion on the same day or over the space of a few days, and 2-3 (or more) other editors (in good or bad faith) !vote delete on the basis of the nomination without doing their own detailed research into the topic. An editor/editors who believes that the subject is notable has just 7(ish) days (assuming they see the nomination on day 1) to find at least 40 high quality sources, note them in the afd or (ideally) add them to the article, defend them if anyone questions that they demonstrate (sufficient) notability, etc. at the same time as any other work they have to do (on or off Wikipedia). This can be an extremely difficult ask, especially if good quality sources are mostly offline, mostly not in English or even just drowned out in search results by low-quality or irrelevant results (e.g. the person has a very common name) - and these are the most likely cases where a good faith, highly thorough BEFORE search by the nominator will fail to find the notability-giving sources (and not every nomination is preceded by a BEFORE search of that standard). It is highly likely that most of these articles will be deleted, regardless of whether the subjects are or are not notable. We rightly strongly discourage individual nominations that list many articles in one that require individual searches to determine notability, even when the subjects are quite closely related. Nominating those same articles in individual simultaneous or overlapping nominations presents many (but not all) of the same issues. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I was going to write something similar to this ^. It's even more the case if the level of sourcing relies on multiple sources rather than just one or two higher quality ones - I still haven't finished working through all the possible sources that could have been used in this case, for example.

Fairly recently a list of 100 articles was put forward at the VP as ones that would need to be taken through the deletion process (specifically "should either be prodded or taken to AfD") - and those were just a start on a large number of stubs created by a long-banned sock who was prolific in creating stubs years ago. We're talking a perceived need to send that many through the deletion process "every day for years". That's clearly not sustainable if there's any level of doubt at all about notability. On that list there were maybe 3 or 4 that were possible candidates for clear-cut deletion (or more likely redirection as it happens). The rest were all arguable (beyond the couple of ones which appeared on the list in error). I've worked on some of the ones on that list since - I don't want to link to any as this could end up getting too personal, and I have no wish for that. It can take me hours - even when I have the sources on the bookshelf behind me. Unless there's really no doubt at all it's a much, much quicker to nom them for deletion than it is to work on them, and nominating anywhere close to that many articles is simply forcing deletion through. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Imagine a scenario in which a large number of articles (say 20) about a similar topic are all nominated for deletion on the same day or over the space of a few days, and 2-3 (or more) other editors (in good or bad faith) !vote delete on the basis of the nomination without doing their own detailed research into the topic. "In good or bad faith" is carrying a lot of weight there, surely? If you think people are weighing in on AFD in bad faith, you should add them as a party or bring them to ANI. But if they're !voting to delete in good faith, then your subjective belief that their research was insufficient, and your subjective belief that their conclusions were wrong, just amounts to saying "AFD might reach conclusions I disagree with." There was still a discussion which reached a consensus on each, so I don't see how it was a FAIT situation. Beyond that, in a low-participation article any opposition at all is likely to get it relisted and buy you more time - if you think all 20 of those are salvageable, nothing stops you from weighing in with a quick "hold up, I think I can find sources for this." Or even doing the search, since you've asserted that in your view such searches are not a big deal and take little time or effort. --Aquillion (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are conflating multiple things, completely ignoring others and completely misinterpreting some other of my comments. If someone is !voting "per nom" without doing their own research it doesn't matter whether they are doing so in good or bad faith, the impact is the same. Good faith !votes can still be incorrect, for example if your research finds no substantive sources then your !vote to delete was (presumably) made in good faith even if someone else's research subsequently does find substantial coverage.

  I'm astounded here that you are arguing that saying nothing stops you from weighing in with a quick "hold up, I think I can find sources for this." should be used to buy time to do research, given that you have argued elsewhere on this page that such comments should be ignored. You can't have it both ways. In a low participation AfD, 3 !votes to delete for lack of demonstrated notability and one saying "keep - it is likely this person is notable" without presenting multiple sources will almost always get deleted, regardless of whether the person is or is not notable.

  I have not said that all searches are not a big deal and take little time or effort. A quick search can conclusively show that some topics are notable, and this should be the absolute minimum required before nomination so that these articles are not brought to AfD. However to determine non-notability a more intensive search is required, these take time and effort - and the greater the likelihood of sources not being easily available on Google the more effort is required (a contemporary footballer playing in a large English-speaking country is going to have a higher google profile than a more notable footballer from a small, Spanish-speaking country who retired in the 1950s, both are going to be easier to find online sources for than 18th century cricketers). It's reasonable to expect someone interested in an article to expend the effort to determine what sources are available within 7 days of a nomination, it is less reasonable to expect them to do the same for 20 articles in 7 days. Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Fait accompli (2)

4) Editors who are collectively or individually nominating multiple similar articles and/or articles in the same or closely related topic areas for deletion must take care that they do not overwhelm the ability of other editors to find sources and/or otherwise improve articles. This includes having consideration for the number of similar or related articles currently being discussed at AfD, the general accessibility of sources in the topic area, and the number of editors currently working on the topic in order to allow a reasonable opportunity to find sources and/or make other improvements to every nominated article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This and the following one (or better versions of them) should I think be considered together for balance. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think KevinL makes a good comment above that relates to this - how is a nomination for deletion a WP:FAIT situation? If they don't get enough participation, deletion discussions default to nothing happening. Possibly you could argue that massive amounts of automated WP:PRODs are a FAIT situation, since they default to deletion if nothing is done and would require another massive number of edits to reverse, but (while there might be other reasons to discourage massive amounts of nominations) AFD nominations are not going to result in the articles getting deleted unless people actually bother to weigh in and say they should be. The principle of FAIT is that an action has already been carried out and is hard to reverse, even if there is no consensus for it - creating a ton of articles is a FAIT situation because it is difficult to delete them all if someone objects; but nominating a bunch of articles for AFD isn't really a FAIT situation, since AFD requires actual consensus. If the AFDs close as delete, that means there was an actual, individual, article-by-article consensus for each article that got deleted, and at that point it's no longer FAIT. Your final sentence seems to imply that there is a particular group of people who are entitled to a chance to review every single AFD, but I don't think that that's the case - every editor has the same significance and weight; if a consensus forms to delete an article, that means that per AGF the editors who contributed to the consensus looked at the article and determined it was not salvageable. That's a valid consensus and not FAIT, even if you, personally, didn't get to weigh in and even if you, personally, feel you could have found an option that they missed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This falls down completely in the face of mass-created pages where no care at all was taken in sourcing their creation, such as those created by Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46. Consider, for example, the 3,753 Iranian "village" articles starting with "Mowtowr", every one of which was created by Carlossuarez46 based on a misunderstanding of the Iranian census (the Iranian census counts people based on the nearest identifiable land-mark, in this case a motor-pump, meaning that there is no actual community with the name "Mowtowr XXXX"). Trying to find sources for each of these is pointless because they simply don't exist - they should be deleted in bulk, or as fast as our processes will allow, without the need to examine each to see if potentially sources are there. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it "falls down completely" and it stands to reason that the articles on the Iranian villages are at least a good faith move, if not the proper approach. If the national government consideres those places significant, that speaks to its impact. Many large cities have roots in common names--Chicago (so I've been told) means "stinky cabbage grows here" and Topeka is "good place to dig for potatoes" or something like that. How about Broken Arrow, Oklahoma or Great Bend, Kansas or Little Rock, Arkansas? Once upon a time, these were small places much like Mowtowr-e Alizadeh. The only thing that I see them "guilty of" is going faster than others.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul McDonald - This really isn't the place to discuss this but please see here, here, and here for why these articles should never have been made. The TL;DR is there was never any reason to believe that these places were actual communities and the idea that they were was based on a complete misunderstanding of how the Iranian census worked. It's like reading a US census and finding a bunch of places called "Mick's Gas Station", "Mr Donut No. 1", "Jethrow's Steak House" and assuming that these place much be villages. That these articles are still here after years of clean-up efforts shows how hard it is to address this kind of problem with the current processes, let alone the slower process proposed above. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe lead with that next time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, if you think that many of them (whatever that means) are unpopulated and you comply with WP:BEFORE, go ahead and nominate what you think fails WP:GEOLAND. I feel this quote, from the first link you shared, demonstrates the problem with filibustering; it's placing a burden of time and effort beyond that required to create the articles on those wanting to contest their creation, and thus with that comment Carlossuarez46 is enforcing WP:FAIT. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal - It should be pointed out that ARBCOM has considered mass-creation on a number of occasions. For example, it was considered in the Rich Farmbrough case, in the Carlossuarez46 case, and was a factor in the Magioladitis 2 case. The crazy thing is the articles that these editors created that failed various policies are mostly still here - it's impossible for quality to catch up with these mass creations. FOARP (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Fait accompli (3)

4) Editors who are collectively or individually creating large numbers of similar articles, and are apprised that those articles are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion before continuing to create more. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present those with different opinions with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption

5) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Good_faith_and_disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

6) There is no deadline

Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. In terms of creation and deletion this means that editors should avoid both:

• Rushing to create articles
• Rushing to delete articles

Neither aspect is more important than the other. We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established; but equally once an article has been created we can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting an article unless its potential significance cannot be established. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has no need to work towards a deadline, there is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. We can wait until tomorrow to create an article on a notable topic; we can wait until tomorrow to delete an article on a non-notable one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I find it doubtful that I would support a principle like this, which is based on an essay that itself states is up to differing interpretations, none of which I believe has explicit community consensus. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mostly this condenses and combines the lead and first two sections at WP:DEADLINE, with small additions of my own. Emphasis on the word "potential" is in the original. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• See my analysis of evidence below. It would take over half a year of full-time work by a dedicated editor - nearly 40 weeks doing so full-time as a nine-to-five job every weekday - to review the articles mass-created by Lugnuts alone at the "one minute search per stub is required" policy interpretation you are pushing for. Note that this entails the creation of up to 480 AFDs a day. If they limited themselves to up to 20 AFDs a day (which some people here have already suggested is too high!), it could take them up to twelve years. And Lugnuts is not the only person creating such stubs; they would also continue to be created while the reviewer was doing their work. What you are requesting is not not doing it slowly and carefully; that is a policy interpretation that makes reviewing them completely infeasible. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• One person's "rushing to create/delete" articles is another person's "enthusiasm and zeal" -- just another version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want a reason to create an aritcle faster--the sooner it is created, the sooner more editors can collaborate and make it better--or decided to stop collaborating and delete it, as the case may be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul McDonald - the issue is that a high enough rate of production there is no equivalence between deletion and creation. As Aquillion points out particularly below, articles can be pumped out at a rate of dozens or even hundreds a day through WP:MEATBOT editing, but deleting them via our current processes simply cannot be done that quickly - the limit is maybe half a dozen a day? Therefore you just get a large number of articles building up that cannot be dealt with and which will never be dealt with, either to improve them (typically anyway impossible) or to delete them. These articles stay with us even after their creators are long gone (cf. the Ruigeroeland case - retired in 2018, but that his mass-created articles contained massive COPYVIO wasn't discovered until 2020). FOARP (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an issue. But I think that the problem is that articles being created violate copyvio or don't meet notability standards, not necessarily that they are being created fast.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

7) Two wrongs don't make a right

Two wrongs do not make a right, specifically with relevance to this case

• The creation of articles too quickly or otherwise out of process does not excuse the deletion (or nomination for deletion) of articles too quickly or otherwise out of process.
• The deletion (or nomination for deletion) of articles too quickly or otherwise out of process does not excuse the creation of articles too quickly or otherwise out of process.

This applies regardless of what your personal feelings are about how right or wrong a given action was, or what the community consensus about the other person's action is, but it is especially applicable when your feelings about an action are not in line with the community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some comments on this workshop lead me to believe that, unfortunately, this does need to be explicitly said. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• If I understand your intent here, this is dead wrong. Per WP:BOLD, a central part of taking a bold action is accepting that it can be reversed as easily as it was done; therefore, if someone boldly creates a large number of stubs in a semi-automated fashion, they are accepting the fact that that action can be undone just as easily. Saying "no, no, they were wrong to do it quickly but it would be equally wrong to undo it quickly" (something that is untrue and which you have not demonstrated a consensus for via evidence) is literally declaring their article creations to be WP:FAIT. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

100% agree here that this appears to basically state that mass-created articles are a fait accompli. It would render clean-up activities like that directed against Carlossuarez46's Iranian "village" articles (these were mostly about things that were not actually inhabited communities, as the creator had misunderstood what the source said) forbidden. It upends the burden of proof - articles must show that they are about something notable, not the other way round, so there is no equivalence between keeping and deletion. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This begs the question. The community has decided on occasion to do these mass deletions, and from an Ignore all rules perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "it is just too much work to go over fifty thousand questionable articles one at a time." You may feel it was wrong, but that was not the consensus of the time. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Following consensus is not a wrong. If you think it is just to omuch work to go over fifty thousand questionable articles one at a time then seek consensus to mass delete those fifty thousand questionable articles. If the community agrees with you then they will be deleted according to consensus and the problem is solved. If the community doesn't agree with you, then clearly mass deletion is not appropriate and you should not do it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Forum to review mass actions

1) Editors are encouraged to develop a forum where disputes regarding mass actions can be discussed at scale without overloading existing processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think Arb encouragements are worthless. The effort to just do it instead is a good one. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mass creation and mass (nomination for) deletion are major parts of this case, as highlighted in multiple findings of fact proposed by others. I've started Wikipedia:Mass action review to workshop the basic idea into something workable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by Dlthewave

Proposed principles

Notability requires verifiable evidence.

1) According to Wikipedia:Notability #Notability requires verifiable evidence, "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." This means that the presumed existence of sources is insufficient grounds to keep an article; any assertion that sources exist must be supported by specific sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The committee absolutely does not have the authority to make any sort of ruling on notability standards. The purpose of this case is to examine the behavior of the named parties so this seems out of scope. --Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So does that mean that if I know that a book exists that deals with the subject but that I don't have access to a copy of, I can't point out that it exists? Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't make an assumption that there are likely to be plenty of sources even when we can't access them? For example, I can find excellent sourcing from the period before the 1950s on New Zealanders at PapersPast. But I can't access the more up to date articles because they aren't available in other parts of the world? e2a: that's a guideline, yes? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I would interpret that guideline as "If you can name a specific book/article, Yes; If you think there's coverage but you can't find it, No". Access isn't a dealbreaker but it depends on the context: A biography is obvious SIGCOV, but a news article could be anything from a dedicated profile to a single mention in a broader piece. –dlthewave ☎ 19:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There exist situations where the extent of coverage is unclear until the source is accessed. There are many more situations where whether something is or is not verified by a given source cannot be determined until accessed. When someone says, "from what I can tell it is likely that there is significant coverage in $source, but I can't access it yet." what should happen? Imo it depends how long it will take to get an answer - a few days, just wait (relisting if that makes things easier), a few weeks then either keep it for now and revisit in a few months (in cases where this source providing what is needed for verification/notability is more likely than not) or draftify/userfy (where that isn't the case). Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:PUBLISH covers this. You do not need to personally have current access to the source provided you are completely confident it backs the point you're relying on it for; but someone must be able to access it. That is, you have to be able to identify it unambiguously enough that someone with eg. a JSTOR account or the time and energy to go to the correct library or whatever could potentially dig it up and verify it. Naming a specific book (a chapter or page would be ideal, but a book is often enough unless someone is specifically doubting that the book actually supports your statement) is fine; saying "I vaguely recall some book" without enough information for anyone else to follow up on it is not. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What about where press coverage is not held in accessible archives but almost certainly exists. I'm thinking specifically about non-English language Indian or Pakistani newspaper coverage from the 1970s, for example. Or New Zealanders from the 1970s where there is no access to archives but coverage is all but certain if there were It interests me that we'll end up keeping articles about people just as notable simply because we don't currently have access to the archives. If they're cases right on the edge of likely to be notable, then fair enough, we can find ATD often, but there are other cases when there is clear notability but it's difficult to provide those sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"Almost certainly exists" is the same thing as "doesn't exist": the alleged source cannot be produced in either case. In any discussion featuring this sort of argument, the article being discussed should have never been created, and should only be created when confirmation of the source is available. Avilich (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

But they were created. Things were different back then - and NSPORTS certainly didn't say what it does now. I didn't create articles like the ones you're probably thinking of, but they were. So we have to live with it.

Now, regarding the existence of sources: absence of evidence is not, of course, evidence of absence. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone already lives with it, but that they shouldn't have been created is something closers should take into account when closing discussions. In any case, verifiable evidence means that sources need to be shown to exist to have any bearing on a discussion. "Evidence for absence" is irrelevant. Avilich (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Verifiable" does not mean "Verified". For example, in a recent AfD, references were found (analyst reports with a published table of contents) but were behind a $5,000 paywall. I think in those cases we need to make some assumptions that the references are likely good. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does. The only acceptable proof of verifiability, in my opinion, is that someone has verified the source. It doesn't mean that the whole work has to be read, and it doesn't mean that it cannot become inaccessible. But a source that hasn't been checked must always be suspect.

To take an apposite example: many California "unincorporated community" articles had one of Durham's California place name books as the sole source. The books were undoubtedly real, but it wasn't until one of us got a physical copy which he could read that it was discovered that the book text was routinely misrepresented, to the point where there was a mass deletion to get rid of every such article. Yeah, they were all "verifiable", until we started verifying them. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions

2) (Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Levels of consensus

3) (Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Levels of consensus at AfD

4) Consensus reached in an AfD discussion is local consensus and does not overrule global consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adding this because editors at AfD/DRV have recently argued that AfD outcomes represent community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 22:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

See the three discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 14 where, at the time of writing (permalink), there is a very clear consensus against Dillthewave's view. Expressed (imo) succinctly and well by Stifle's comment "Policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation in each individual case, and applied to these cases by consensus.". Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

They are subject to interpretation, but are not subject to being overridden. For example, editors can reasonably disagree about whether a given source is from a crypto-centric news organizations, but if they agree that a given source is from such an organization they cannot then reject WP:NCRYPTO and keep an article based on coverage in it. I believe that DRV is actually evidence of the problem; the editors most active at AfD and DRV are not representative of the broader community, and thus unless WP:LOCALCON is enforced often produces results that the broader community would reject. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

At some point you do have to accept that your opinion does not always accord with consensus. In the specific examples, there have been two different AfDs and now a DRV, all with different participants, who that have come to (or are coming to) the same conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If those participants hold the position that crypto-centric news organizations are suitable to establish the notability of cryptocurrencies, or any other position that is contrary to existing guidelines or policies, then they are encouraged to propose that the guideline or policy is changed. However, if they decline to do so, or if they do so and there is not a consensus for their proposal, then it is their position that is not in accordance with consensus, and attempting to disregard that consensus is disruptive even if locally they are in the majority. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:5P5 and Ignore all rules suggests that polices and guidelines indeed CAN be overridden.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are merely a summary of the custom and practice followed across the encylopedia, and should summarize what is commonly done in a given situation, not the other way around. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

GiantSnowman has cast aspersions at AfD

1) In at least two AfD discussions [2][3], GiantSnowman accused the nominator of not carrying out a WP:BEFORE search. Neither GiantSnowman nor any other editor provided any SIGCOV sources to support this claim, and the articles were deleted or redirected due to lack of significant coverage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Many in this discussion have been very vocal in insisting that there is no requirement to do a BEFORE search prior to nominating an article for deletion. I don't understand how saying you believe that a nominator has not done something they (the nominator) insist is optional is casting aspersions? Not accompanying the statement with sources that a basic BEFORE search would have found is rarely going to be a useful contribution to a discussion, but it is not casting aspersions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't think it's casting aspersions for an admin to say WP:BEFORE - you need to comply with it., prompting another editor to jump in using their assumption of no BEFORE to levy PA-bordering criticism on the nominator? Or for that admin to propose, in an AfD, collecting evidence of the nom "failing to do BEFORE" in order to topic ban them at ANI? JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this out of scope?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has cited a deprecated SNG

2) In at least three AfDs [4][5][6], GiantSnowman voted "Keep" with reasons such as "professional footballer", "large number of professional appearances" and "professional footballer in Sweden's top league". At that time, GS had participated in ongoing sports notability discussions and was aware that the SNG which gave presumed notability to footballers who played at a certain level had been deprecated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AfD is vulnerable to disruption

3) Enforcement of policies and guidelines by AfD closers is inconsistent and many articles are kept that do not meet GNG or the relevant SNG.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unless you're going to get an AI to do it or put just one person in charge, this is to be expected isn't it? I mean, it happens in real life - sometimes even when a group of nine experts end up overturning 50 years of actual legal precedent, whilst disagreeing strongly between themselves. Surely it's a baked-in feature? And any attempt to do anything about it is doomed to failure, isn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

One thing that would definitely help would be to clarify the instructions at WP:CLOSEAFD to read (addition bolded): Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy- and guideline-based arguments. and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to read: Arguments that contradict policy or guidelines, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

This would bring it in line with what most closers do already and with the spirit of Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. This would address the rather common issue where a discussion has arguments that are clearly guideline-based but in the minority. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In practice, local consensus often overrides global consensus

4) AfD closures often reflect only the local consensus which has formed in that particular discussion, even when it conflicts with policies, guidelines and community-level RfCs which have global consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lugnuts has falsely accused editors of harrasment by "targeting" articles at AfD

5) Lugnuts has repeatedly accused editors including Johnpacklambert of "targeting" articles that he created for deletion. Repeatedly nominating Lugnuts' creations is not evidence of harassment, as these nominations simply reflect the large percentage of articles that he has created in certain topic areas. Additionally, going through a known disruptive editor's contributions is a routine cleanup method that does not necessarily constitute harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Has Lugnuts "falsely accused editors of harrassment" or has Lugnuts "accued editors of harrassment without evidence" ? There is a small distinction between the two.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Falsely accused editors of harassment"; in their evidence they repeat accusations that John Pack Lambert and I are harassing them by targeting articles they created, despite this having been disproven as correlation with statistical evidence at ANI in January (linked in S Marshall's evidence), and then again in my preliminary evidence and in Cryptic's evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Lugnuts is warned

1) Lugnuts is warned to refrain from accusing editors of "targeting" their article creations for deletion, as this in itself a form of harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think the evidence supports a warning to this effect. Perhaps the wording can be tweaked to allow for the possibility of genuine harassment, in which case Lugnuts is to make a report in the appropriate venue and accept the outcome of the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. (As if my agreement means anything...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Vaulter

Proposed principles

WP:AFD and WP:DISCUSSAFD

1) Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accountability for conduct

2) Editors are accountable for their conduct. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their actions and to justify them where needed. Where the Arbitration Committee, the community or other authorised person imposes a sanction, editors are expected to comply with both the letter and spirit of the sanction (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Accountability for conduct)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption

3) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Good_faith_and_disruption)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Recidivism) (see also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Patterns_of_behavior and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Repeated behavior)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sanctions and circumstances

5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Sanctions and circumstances)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evaluating user conduct

6) An editor's misconduct is not excused because another editor or editors may have engaged in some other form of misconduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project. (adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Evaluating user conduct)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Johnpacklambert's current ban

1) In March 2017, Johnpacklambert was banned by the community from using WP:AFD to nominate more than one article for deletion per day.[7] This ban was imposed for nominating too many articles for deletion too quickly, without considering WP:BEFORE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Johnpacklambert's other sanctions

2) Johnpacklambert has been the subject of numerous sanctions, including two since-lifted indefinite blocks and a still-extant topic ban from articles related to religion and/or religious figures imposed in 2021 (Ritchie333's evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Johnpacklambert at noticeboards

3) Since August 2020, Johnpacklambert has been the subject at least seven additional noticeboard discussions. (Ritchie333's evidence; Vaulter's evidence). Five of these threads relate to deletion processes (AFD, WP:CFD and WP:PROD). Only one of these threads was opened by another named party to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Johnpacklambert and drive-by voting

4) On numerous occasions this year, Johnpacklambert has made drive-by comments in multiple AFDs in quick succession. This pattern has continued during the pendency of this case. (Vaulter's evidence; Northamerica1000's evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Johnpacklambert topic banned

1) Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from Wikipedia's deletion processes, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is there some reason not to narrow this to "Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed"? The problems seem limited to AfD and Johnpacklambert has historically been involved with CfD without significant controversy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That's up to the arbs I guess, but from my perspective it makes sense to just make it a blanket ban. I don't see why we would ban JPL (or any user) from AFDs but allow him to make unlimited PRODs, for example. -- Vaulter 15:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Your proposed findings of fact 1, 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant, and finding 4 should earn him no harsher punishment than the countless other editors who do the same thing (1, 2, 3). His AfD stats are quite acceptable. Avilich (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The lady doth protest too much, methinks [8]. -- Vaulter 13:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the issue at hand is JPL's creation and nomination of articles for deletion, not necessarily any participation in xfd discussions. Before I would recommend support of this initiative, I'd want to see clear-cut evidence that the ban should be for all participation in xfd discussions, not just in nominations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by GoodDay

Proposed principles

Administrators as referees

1) Have only administrators close & render the decision in AfDs & MfDs. The closing administrator, should also referee behaviour in deletion discussions. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This feels beyond the scope of what ArbCom can decide as it feels like it would be setting policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't a principle, it's a policy change tht we couldn't possibly even consider. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose - Non-admin closures of uncontroversial deletion discussions (as long as the result doesn't require admin tools to implement) have long been established practice, and are mostly unproblematic. They also give editors who aspire to adminship a chance to practice closing deletion discussions in relatively low-stakes environments, and gives the community a chance to see how they fared before deciding whether to make them an admin. Furthermore, admins have never played the part of "referees" or babysitters. It's assumed that editors here can police themselves and behave in a civilized manner (or otherwise be sanctioned). I'm not sure what problem this proposal aims to solve. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Scottywong and Barkeep already made great points, but I feel like if closures of XfD were only done by administrators, the backlog would only grow and grow. Just look at CfD. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As a non-administrator (who will never even try to become one under the current system), I've closed the occasional deletion discussion so that nobody else would have to take the time. Non-admin closes keep the backlog down and are typically fine. I do not know what it would mean to "referee" behavior, particularly since the admin who closes is not supposed to be involved in the discussion before closing. XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a suggestion. If it can't or won't be adopted? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If not administrators? Then perhaps a designated group of editors could be chosen, who'd have sole authority over closing & evaluating consensus & editor behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Too much emotional involvement

1) Regrettable, but it does appear that 'some' editors get too emotionally involved, in deletion discussions. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

So, the way this works is, principles lead into finding of fact, which lead into remedies. There should be a principle behond every finding, and remedy that attempts to resolve the issue identified. I'm struggling to see how this fits into that framework, it just seems like a random personal observation. --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Not sure this is quite right. Some sort of "tempers are heated" thing might be worth mentioning as a way to explain what's going on (and in particular as a reason to confine sanctions to that one topic area, for people who are fine elsewhere), but being emotionally involved itself is not against policy and is not something ArbCom sanctions for, provided people are able to be civil, avoid battleground conduct, maintain NPOV, etc. Sanctions should be based on specific, demonstrable stuff like incivility or battleground conduct, not on "you're too emotionally invested in this." --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Being too emotionally involved, tends to be the basis of any breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case you should present evidence for, and focus on, the violations of WP:CIVIL / WP:BATTLE etc, not the emotional involvement. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Escalating topic bans

1) If any editor(s) can't control their behaviour in deletion discussions? Then perhaps it's best to topic-ban them from deletion discussions, beginning with a six-month t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

When the case opened, some kind of DS felt on the table in my mind. This was based on what editors said in their preliminary statements. While I have not completed my deep-dive into all submitted evidence (in other words I have not yet clicked and read fully everything) from what what I have seen the evidence does not justify DS, even a narrow one like this one. The fact that we didn't add any parties to this case during the week we set aside to do so is another indicator that a topic remedy may be less appropriate than remedies for individual named parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I would need to see evidence of a dispute that the community in general, and administrators specifically, are unable to handle issues using normal tools and processes. So one example of this could be statements by administrators saying "I tried here, here, and here and was unsuccessful, for these reasons". Another way to demonstrate this would be examples of dispute resolution not working. For instance, Levivich gave some evidence during the case request stage around the prevalence of deletion discussions at ANI. More substance and development of that could be evidence for this second category. On its own "goes to ANI a lot" isn't an issue for me. It would have to be "goes to ANI a lot, there's consensus there's a problem, and it's not getting solved." For instance, if it goes to ANI a lot and there's not a consensus there's a problem, I'm not saying I would never vote for DS but I would be a lot more skeptical. If it goes to ANI a lot but the problems normally get solved (or get solved outside of a few editors) that would suggest normal processes are working and DS would not be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: The narrative you've written here is, if accurate, quite strong. In my opinion (having only taken a brief look) your evidence is not strong enough to back it up as a pattern. If you need an extension to make your point more clear, I would encourage you to apply for one. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Barkeep49, what kind of evidence would convince you DS was a valid option? There are many other prolific AfD participants whose AfD conduct is regularly called out as disruptive. However, adding potentially 50+ editors to the case would be a disaster. One of the reasons I decided not to add the two editors I named was because there are several other editors just within NFOOTY AfDs whose behavior is substantially the same, so it seemed unfair for just two of them to risk sanctions. But including all of them in evidence would require well beyond the word/diff limits, and would also bring in many-fold more comments in the case. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the major issues, which I touch on in my prelim statement and evidence, is that repeated egregious mischaracterization of guidelines and sources in AfDs doesn't receive any administrative response. Here are some common situations:

An editor misrepresents the applicability or scope of a notability guideline (e.g. by stating a subject meets some SNG sub-criterion but not mentioning that other criteria are actually required for the SNG to presume notability, or by quoting a deprecated criterion), another editor points out these other criteria are required, but the first editor just responds "I disagree" or further misquotes the guideline, making it look like a mere interpretative dispute unless the closer is actually familiar with the guideline. If more editors who "disagree" jump in with the same faulty argument, it becomes hard to close against them even if the closer knows they are incorrect. After all, DRV participants can claim those !voters were actually making an IAR argument, or that by invoking that sub-criterion they were really saying GNG was extremely likely to exist (and that that is somehow valid in every circumstance), or any number of post hoc justifications for not discounting their !votes.

Even more frequently, an editor will link some sources they claim show the subject meets GNG, but that on inspection are clearly unreliable or non-independent. This forces other editors to dispute each link. Then subsequent participants come in affirming GNG is met with those sources, prompting another round of responses explaining why they are not sufficient. If the disputing editor doesn't sustain their objection forcefully enough, or if no one else backs them up, they are overruled, and a standalone is retained based on entirely faulty sourcing.

This is the case with just about every mildly contentious sportsperson AfD. There are at least a dozen editors just within football and cricket who routinely participate in this way and/or go along with an editor who does. It doesn't matter how often they are called out by other !voters, how often they are directly shown the guidelines, how poor their success rate is, or even how often the close statement explicitly says it discounted their !vote; they never get sanctioned because the only admins who would even recognize their arguments are disruptive, let alone persistent, are the experienced closers in the area or are fellow participants. And those admins are extremely reluctant to give out even warnings due both to being INVOLVED, and to the appearance of outcome preference such a warning could have. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Following English Wikipedia decision-making tradition, closers are evaluating the consensus of the discussion participants, and thus judging strength of argument based on how convincing they've been to each other. In cases where the participants are disputing the consensus support behind a guideline, Wikipedia's guidance on determining rough consensus doesn't require that priority be given to current guidelines (some closers may, some may not). Editors can express their dissenting views non-contentiously and in recognition of what the current guidelines say (even if they disagree that a sufficient consensus was attained for those guidelines). It's not clear to me that authorizing any administrator to impose sanctions at their discretion will be able to resolve this tension between both sides. For better or worse, the "guidance follow practice" principle combined with the current practices for determining rough consensus means every deletion discussion is another potential venue to revisit guidelines. isaacl (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this suggesting that there is only one way that it's possible to view the set of **guidelines** we have to work with? Even when they are clearly contradictory in part? Or that it's unreasonable to weigh up a set of sources and guidelines and, even, policy differently to someone else? Because that's really, really close to suggesting that "I'm right, you're wrong" is the way we should do things. And, for that matter, that we could never change that view.

It also suggests that anyone who argues delete when an obvious ATD exists is flat out wrong and should be sanctioned by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not talking about arguments where the guideline actually is interpretable, or where there is good-faith effort to explain why a guideline doesn't/shouldn't apply, or where an editor makes inaccurate and unsupported claims about P&Gs only a handful of times. I'm talking about editors with a long-term pattern of !voting against consensus just to make a point, without explanatory rationales, despite ample pushback by multiple other participants; and especially about !voters who make literally deceptive assertions about sourcing. If someone (hypothetically) continues to !vote "keep meets NFOOTY" at dozens of footballer AfDs--without expanding on their reasoning--even after being told the subguideline was deprecated, then that is disruptive and should be sanctioned, since it wastes other editors' time having to dispute such !votes. If someone routinely claims sources they found meet GNG, but they turn out to be blogs or press releases or school newspapers (when the subject is a student), despite being shown multiple times that such sources are unacceptable, that is also disruptive. There is a big distinction between differences in opinion on subjective guidance (like SIGCOV, or whether/for how long we can presume coverage exists offline), and outright flouting of specific, objective rules. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that - it's much clearer and helps reassure me that we're not headed somewhere unpleasant. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

L235, do you mean the evidence isn't strong enough to demonstrate a pattern for the two editors I mentioned, or that I would need to show that same level of evidence for multiple other editors to demonstrate the issue is widespread? I think my evidence is already at 500 words just focusing on those two editors, so it would be difficult to fit more examples in unless I forwent summaries and contextualization. I'm also rather reluctant to personally be responsible for so many category 1 alerts against editors I still interact with almost daily at AfDs... JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@L235, @Barkeep49 Ok, I've attempted to show there is a pattern of repeated guideline-deficient, anti-consensus !voting behavior among multiple different editors, except without specifically naming any of those individuals. I don't know how else I could support my narrative of the issue being both broad (many editors) and persistent (repeated behavior by the same individuals) without also needing to leave category 1 notices on tons of people's pages (based on the criteria for alert level y'all advised me on in our emails). My examples are restricted to athlete AfDs in the last year (with a couple stretching back up to 3 years) involving editors who are not sanctioned (there are a number of other editors who were or are blocked/banned for reasons other than AfD behavior whose conduct was the same). I am also active in NPROF AfDs where I see less of the problems I describe here (although there are some examples), but based on comments in this case and elsewhere by @HighKing, @Trainsandotherthings, @Liz, @FOARP, @Mangoe, @Scottywong, and others I'm confident that these issues (including, I'm sure, examples of delete !voters) are prevalent in many other AfD areas as well. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned here, I'd like to say I strongly agree with JoelleJay's interpretation here. We have a systemic problem with, as JoelleJay puts it, "repeated guideline-deficient, anti-consensus !voting behavior among multiple different editors". I've seen this in my topic area (trains) and the evidence JoelleJay and others have provided shows it is widespread throughout the many areas of AfD. Most of the examples JoelleJay and I have identified pertain to inclusionists, but that doesn't mean that those who argue for deletion aren't ever guilty of this either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• I also concur with this. From my experience, the same editors turn up at many AfDs constantly engaging in "repeated guideline-deficient, anti-consensus !voting behavior" and often in the same groups. This is one area where !voting statistics are helpful in determining long-term problematic conduct. The problem is exasperated by a lack of transparency and consistency among different admins closing AfDs - some appear (although it will be denied) to simply count !votes, others will refuse to discount guideline-deficient arguments. In my view this leads to a dreadful inconsistency in quality and contributes to the BATTLEGROUND mentality many feel they have to bring to AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  In my view this leads to a dreadful inconsistency in quality and contributes to the BATTLEGROUND mentality many feel they have to bring to AfD Very true. Since I'm not at all confident that whoever closes an AfD will be familiar with the relevant guidelines, I end up reiterating the consensus all the time, in response to multiple deficient !votes, and often that still isn't enough as the exact same editors who opposed changes to those guidelines will show up to dispute enforcement of them. And yet if we don't rebut or explain why a !vote is poor many closers seem to default to !vote counts even when that closer is actually well aware of the guidelines. This directly encourages bludgeoning and amplifies frustration and AfD burnout--which of course only worsens the problems. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• I tend to have to stop myself doing that these days as some editors view it as a type of BLUDGEONING and I have to admit, sometimes my writing style is a bit shit and comes across poorly. I'd like to see some changes for sure. Recently I've been thinking about a shepherded AfD process being trialed where the shepherd is simply an editor who does not participate, !vote or close, but nevertheless is an "expert" in the applicable guidelines and can ping editors to clarify their points or their interpretations of guidelines (or even invite them to refer to a guideline in their !vote). Or perhaps to elect specialist closing admins for particular areas to serve for a short period of time on a panel of closers. Or for the DRV process to be run in that way and let the AfD process go on as normal. Over time we might see improving standards, consistency and higher quality overall. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  It means a lot that you are willing to acknowledge this, @HighKing. As a newcomer to AfD, I was shocked that my first encounter with you was this: [1]

  Then I was extremely distressed when my first encounter with @JoelleJay went like this: [2]

  As far as I could tell, AfD was total anarchy if the most experienced regulars were allowed to treat newcomers without AGF and make all the arguments that we are told to avoid per WP:ATA (and flood discussions with walls of extraneous text).

  Over time I came to appreciate that both of you are knowledgeable and often do make good arguments. My advice to both of you is to take a lighter touch, be confident in the strength of your arguments – maybe even take more of a “drive-by” approach? You may find that you are more persuasive that way and cover more ground.

  There is no need to panic; the low-quality !votes speak for themselves to anyone who has read the rules. Relax and trust the process and the closers. Don’t take it so personally when a !vote occasionally doesn’t go your way. And remember there are lots of people who have no idea about the old “war” and actually want no part in it.

  Finally, with regard to moderation: After agonizing about this for weeks, I’ve concluded that if I could do New Chapter all over again, I would have gone to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion immediately to raise the flag that the discussion had spiralled out of control. I think multiple parties are to blame for what happened, but it was an extreme circumstance that could have been stopped with timely intervention, which I think many admins would have gladly provided. I do not think it is right to re-litigate New Chapter. I have tried to say as little about it as possible, as I do not want to become a party to this “war”, but I felt it was necessary to state that I believe @7&6=thirteen's behavior in that discussion also needs to be understood as his way of trying to protect the new person.

  To conclude, I will say the good news is that I have come to appreciate that the AfD process overall is robust after all. The football AfD process has finally settled, the overwhelming majority of footballer stubs are being deleted, also with many solid “Delete” !votes from @GiantSnowman and others. Let’s stop re-litigating the past, or make the process more complicated than it already is. The large volume of nominations is definitely a problem, but for sure you will not get more quality participation at AfD, if this is how you welcome new volunteers. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I rarely frequent Afds & Mfds. You're more likely to find me at RMs & RFCs. But the four parties-in-question? I've seen them frequently (in the last few months) brought before WP:ANI, in relation to Afds. It's obvious, they've peeved off enough editors, to bring about this Arbcom case. I've no malice towards any of these four individuals, but it's become apparent that their presence at Afds is no longer wanted. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Have they "peeved off enough editors" for policy violations or because they continue to disagree? I mean, I don't really want them in AFD either--but that's not a reason to kick them out. If it degrades to being uncivil, or legal threats, or outing... those are reasons. Speaking against consensus is not a crime--consensus can change and the only way consensus can change is if people are allowed to speak against it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So this is one pattern I see:

1. An AfD participant asserts notability based on an inapplicable or deprecated guideline because they disagree with global consensus on that guideline. E.g. arguing that playing on a national football team "confers (or even presumes) notability", despite all participation-based sports criteria being removed from NSPORT and all "presumed notable" language replaced with "SIGCOV is likely to exist" and the requirement added that at least one SIGCOV source must be cited in all sports articles.
2. They make this argument at every footballer AfD.
3. Other editors have to dispute this argument each time because if they don't, a closer apparently cannot discount those !votes even if the closer is familiar with the guideline themselves
4. Other editors who also disagree with the guideline amendments come in with the same !votes regardless of whether someone disputed the first deprecated guideline !vote
5. Deprecated guideline !votes gain numerical advantage (or even just come within ~75%+ of the majority)
6. If someone did contest the deprecated guideline !vote(s), and the closer is familiar with and accepts the amended guideline, and the closer believes s/he can discount guideline-noncompliant !votes, and s/he is comfortable closing against numerical consensus, the close may have a guideline-compliant outcome.
7. The close statement explicitly remarks that deprecated guideline !votes were discounted and cautions not to use such arguments
8. The deprecated guideline !voters continue making the same arguments
9. Eventually they hit an AfD where no one's around to rebut them, or the closer doesn't know the guideline/personally agrees with them/doesn't want to close against a numerical majority, and the AfD is closed in their favor
10. This close is then cited as precedent in support of similar closes

Arriving at a LOCALCON contrary to guidelines, when there wasn't even acknowledgement of those guidelines in the first place (e.g. there was no explicit argument for why we should ignore a guideline in this case), or where there was limited participation, should not override a guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That feels like the "pattern" over the last 10-15 years... part of the ebb and flow of Wikipedia. Sometimes it flows one way, sometimes another. And I think that's fine--part of the WP:PILLARS and seems to fit nicely. Wikipedia is not perfect, among the many other things that Wikiepdia is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Deliberately, repeatedly misrepresenting or pointily challenging community consensus because you disagree with it is disruptive. When someone changes some field in dozens of articles in a way that goes against MOS or whatever guideline, and keeps doing it after being informed it's a problem, especially after RfCs are held to reaffirm global community feelings on the matter, that person is sanctioned. It is no different here, except that the enforcement is completely absent -- not because admins and others don't think it's a problem, but because they don't feel empowered to do anything out of concern they'll be seen as "involved". It's not like a content dispute where you can find some other admin to step in who has never edited in the topic area before; the AfD closers who are best able to recognize a pattern of disruption are the ones who close in the disruptor's topics and will therefore have extensive past experience closing against them. From my conversations with these closers, they do not want even the slightest appearance of favoring one "side" over another especially if their personal preferences are known, and warning a prolific AfD participant you have a history with definitely would give that appearance. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Deliberately misrepresenting consensus is disruptive. Disagreeing with consensus is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with consensus and acting on it repeatedly, resulting in other editors having to clean up after you, is disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you mean by "acting on it repeatedly" -- you've clarified "resulting in other editors having to clean up after you" -- but what you describe in the ten step process above could be that... or it could be consensus changing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If an opinion on how notability should be assessed is unable to achieve a keep outcome in hundreds of AfDs, is explicitly rejected dozens of times in AfD close statements, and is explicitly rejected in an RfC with 115+ !voters, then a handful of editors continuing to assert that opinion as if it is a valid rationale is not "consensus changing". Invoking rejected criteria at AfD is not how consensus is changed; that should be done at a well-attended central discussion, not enacted locally due to poor AfD attendance. How do you think someone at AfD insisting all athlete bios contain at least one source with SIGCOV at all times would have been received prior to that proposal being passed in the RfC? JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

What you describe in the preceeding paragraph seems drastically different from the 10 points outlined above. For example, knowingly invoking rejected criteria as if it were not is most certainly in bad faith and violates the 5 pillars. I'm wanting to make sure that editors are free to disagree and it seems that a lot of the comments are along the lines of an editor disagreeing with consensus. That's not a problem. The problem is being uncivil, lying, or otherwise taking actions in bad faith. There is a difference and it needs to be clarified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the 10 steps are any different from what I said in the last comment. Step 1 is an editor asserting notability is met with criteria from a rejected guideline. Steps 2-10 are that editor and some friends repeating this argument in dozens of AfDs, forcing other editors to explain that the guideline was rejected in each one, and successfully pushing their stance in a limited percentage of those AfDs due to low attendance. That's really not even a local consensus to override the actual guideline, since no argument is put forth even acknowledging it let alone a persuasive claim why it should be overruled. ROUGHCONSENSUS says overriding guidelines should be "no less exceptional" at AfD than anywhere else, and yet I don't know any other area where doing so is both this prevalent and doesn't involve cogent IAR discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I would consider there to be a difference between disagreeing with a local consensus and disagreeing with a broader consensus. Editors are free to disagree with the local consensus (although if they always disagree there is likely a WP:CIR or WP:IDHT issue), but disagreeing with a broader consensus absent an exceptional and strong WP:IAR's argument means that they are pushing for a result that is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL, and that is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at the policy WP:CCC for some insight: "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." Of course there's more there... but isn't the whole focus on this what's happening in deletion discussions? I strongly support the concept that somoene can disagree with consensus without having a firm policy reason or even well-thought-out-argument--because that editor might actually be RIGHT and not be able to express it, and it might be a new thought that the experts haven't considered. Now, what they do with that disagreement may or may not be disruptive and call for intervention. But just disagreeing and proposing a discussion? That's not the problem... that's the point. That's how Wikipedia gets better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I take that to mean if you disagree with a policy you can either edit the policy, or open a discussion about the policy - your interpretation I would consider to lead to disruption, particularly WP:IDHT issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't beleive I have to point this out, so here goes: "DISCUSSION" and "EDITING THE POLICY" are two entirely different things. I'm overwhelmed that you're quoting WP:IDHT while doing it yourself. My statements and points have been made and I see no reason to repsond to arguments I have NOT made. I don't want to revert into WP:WABBITSEASON any more than we already have.--15:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. Editors who disagree with a local consensus can attempt to challenge it by editing the article or by commenting in a discussion. Editors who disagree with a broad consensus can attempt to challenge it by editing the policy or by commenting in a discussion on the policy - but they cannot attempt to challenge it by editing an article or by commenting in a lower level discussion in contravention of the policy, as that has WP:DE, particularly WP:IDHT, issues.

This is because it doesn't challenge the actual consensus, and so even if the change goes un-reverted, or even if they manage to make the discussion abide by a local consensus, the broad consensus still exists and another editor will be required to put in the work in the future to correct the discrepancy caused. BilledMammal (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. You CAN argue in contravention of policy. That's always allowed, per WP:IAR. But then you need to tell the other discussion partipiciants why you disagree and tell the others that you actually are proposing something contrary to policy. These arguments have little weight, but, unlike faulty arguments that just contradict policy(and do not mention it), not zero weight. Lurking shadow (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Escalating blocks

1) If disruptive behaviour continues, via breaching topic ban(s)? Then escalating blocks, should be handed out. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by BilledMammal

Proposed principles

Fait accompli

1) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Medicine. It supports #Mass article creation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where "editors making a few edits each" enters in here. I think it would be rough to say "you all unrelated people are doing something similar (say making articles about soccer players or nominating articles about soccer players for deletion) and so you're all doing bad things". But otherwise this seems very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

In the context of article creation I would consider similar to have a much narrower meaning than making articles in the same broad topic area, whether by an individual editor or by a group of editors. Instead, I would consider it to mean that the content of the articles are similar, such as through the use of templates.

However, you are right that the issue here appears to be with a "few editors making many edits" rather than "many editors making a few edits each", so I don't see an issue with removing the aspects related to collective behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Filibustering

2) Filibustering, by requiring those who wish to reverse fait accompli actions to commit more time or effort to doing so than was required to implement the actions, is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not previously used as a principle but an extension of Fait Accompli, and based on WP:DE, specifically in the form of not engaging in consensus building, rejecting or ignoring community input, and tendentiousness. It is also based on WP:ONUS (the editors wishing to include the disputed material need a consensus for it), and WP:BRD (once a bold edit has been reverted, you should discuss it and attempt to get consensus for it, not dispute the revert - while it is an essay it has wide support from the community.) BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Eh. For better or worse we don't measure things in terms of time it takes to do or undo them. I've seen AfDs of very very short articles that have many more words written than are in the article. That's just the way we do things and is sometimes even the right way forward. So, in general, claiming that folks needing to "commit more time or effort to doing so than was required to implement the actions, is disruptive" is pretty unreasonable. If it's only in the context of "fait accompli" you need to have a pretty clear definition of that term before this can be seriously considered IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree; a single editor creating an article in half an hour that takes the community three hours to delete isn't a problem. What is a problem is a single editor creating 1000 articles and presenting them as a fait accompli; this problem is then made worse if filibustering occurs, where editors require those who seek to reverse the fait accompli to spend more time doing so than the first editor spent creating the articles.

If this principle, or one like it, is adopted it would need to be closely connected to a suitable definition of fait accompli. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically agree with the point here. We saw this particularly in the Carlossuarez46 case when it was pointed out to them that many, many of the Iranian "villages" they had created articles about in their mechanistic creation of articles about Iranian "villages" were in fact not villages - even with this the onus was still on those pointing this out to prove that each of the many thousands of stub articles was about something that wasn't a village, rather than just giving up the lot for a bad job. The result is that many of these articles are still here (e.g., Hoseynabad-e Khani, Arzuiyeh, which appears just to be someone's name, or Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 1 which is just the name of a pump) despite the work of a dedicated clean-up team spending years on fixing his articles. Carlos would simply resist any deletion of any articles individually, when in fact his Iranian "village" creations should have been looked at in the round and simply deleted in bulk. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Net positive

3) Editors are expected to ensure their edits are a net positive and do not create work for the community that is disproportionate to the benefit of the edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not previously used as a principle. It supports #Mass article creation and is based on WP:DE, with the line Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors speaking to this. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That feels like too much pressure to put on newbies to insist that all edits are good edits. Who decides, under what criteria, and what are the consequences of being wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Net positive (2)

3.1) Editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. In the context of article creation and deletion, editors should ensure that their edits are a net positive and do not create work for the community that is disproportionate to the benefit of the edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not previously used as a principle. It supports #Mass article creation and is based on WP:DE, with the line Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors speaking to this. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This brings in aspects of WP:MEATBOT to add to the previous elements pulled from WP:DE and WP:CIR. In this case the many of the underlying issues are with large numbers of problematic contributions, something the previous version of this principle didn't directly address. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Quality" is a matter of opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is, but expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity is a direct quote from WP:MEATBOT. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Templated Article Creation

4) The use of templates, populated with information scraped from databases, to facilitate the mass-creation of articles is a form of semi-automated editing and requires approval through requests for bot approval in line with our policy on the use of bots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This feels more like a remedy than a principle. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: fair point on your question. Where it veered in a new direction for me is that this introduces a new twist on the policy, use of templates populated with information scraped from databases, where as those are just forms of restating what's in policy (or actually using what's written there). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not previously used as a principle, but based on WP:MEATBOT and WP:MASSCREATE. It supports #Mass article creation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A significant aspect of this dispute is the issue of mass created micro-stubs and how the community addresses them. This principle is intended to address the root of that dispute, and while it won't solve the current issues it will prevent them reoccurring in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean "template" in the sense of wikt:template#Noun #2, I hope, not Help:Template. If someone's really been creating stubs with a template-in-the-sense-of-Mediawiki, then that hasn't been presented in evidence that I see. —Cryptic 10:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do; in evidence I give two examples; one from Lugnuts, and one from BlackJack. They are slightly simplified, for ease of demonstration; the real template includes references to the database, and in the case of Lugnuts, a simple infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that using a skeleton framework to start an article is equivalent to semi-automated editing. A agreed-upon recommended article layout for subjects in a certain category (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format for ice hockey teams) is a common aid to help editors fill in information that is expected in an encyclopedia article. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that your example isn't equivalent to semi-automated editing, I also don't think it is equivalent to the templates presented in my evidence; it doesn't allow articles to be created by doing nothing except substituting values in. BilledMammal (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The root issue though isn't whether or not a skeleton format is used to assist article creation. As I understand it, you are objecting to article stubs that only contain a minimum number of facts, and thus are easy to create without having to investigate sources that can demonstrate that English Wikipedia's standards for having an article have been met. This is a community guidance issue rather than a Wikipedia principle, and about minimum requirements for an article, rather than if an editor used a skeleton. isaacl (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear; the issue addressed here is the use of automated or semi-automated processes to mass create articles in the absence of consensus to do so. In particular, the use of templates like the ones in my evidence are part of the process of moving from manual article creation to automated article creation, which means they cross the line into semi-automated creation. I also note that some editors who have mass-created articles through the use of templates have used automated tools to populate them; I have evidence of Lugnuts and Sander.v.Ginkel doing so, but I suspect it is common practice. BilledMammal (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concern regarding mass creation of articles. Your proposed principle, though, equates the use of a skeleton with semi-automated editing. I disagree that the community should impose constraints on the process an editor uses to write a new article in the privacy of their own environment (and I don't feel it should be set forth as a Wikipedia principle). (Yes, I remember earlier arbitration cases discussing the use of search-and-replace. As I recall, the real issue there was insufficient care taken with this approach.) The community can discuss what policies or guidelines it wants to set on how articles and changes are submitted to English Wikipedia (as it does with its current restrictions on automated and semi-automated editing), and what minimum information should be contained in new articles. isaacl (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards: The community has already discussed this and imposed restraints on mass article creation, regardless of technique, per WP:MEATBOT. If you'd like to change that, you're welcome to propose a policy change. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This principle isn't proposing a restraint on mass article creation, but how an editor creates an article on their own computer, whether or not it's submitted at high-speed. isaacl (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the principle; it only applies to the use of templates to facilitate the mass-creation of articles. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That's the point: the problem lies with the mass-creation of articles. It doesn't matter how they were created on the user's computer. As you alluded to, no one can distinguish how they were entered in. We don't need to restrain what the editor does on their computer. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts mentions that he used "a raft of functions under the Text parameters (right, mid, concat, etc)". If you're familiar with Excel, you'll know that the these types of functions would be used for automatically converting identically-formatted snippets of text to a format suitable for Wikipedia, likely en masse. Although we can't be sure exactly which process Lugnuts used, the resources discussed here (Creating Wikipedia pages with Excel and PDF to Excel Converter) would be used to copy an entire table from a website and automatically convert each line to Wikipedia article text. So no, he wasn't just manually filling in skeleton templates. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Lugnuts mentions that he used "a raft of functions under the Text parameters (right, mid, concat, etc)"" No, what I actually said was "There's a raft of functions under the Text parameters (right, mid, concat, etc) that have been more than useful in the past" Nothing there to say I actually used them on WP. I did say "...and use it from time to time to construct the bare-bones of my Wiki building..." which I have used to create or format list articles, such as this and this. I've never actually used any automation/Excel functions to create stubs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The principle, as written, makes no distinction regarding how the skeleton is filled in. And the real issue is not whether or not someone stockpiles an inventory of articles on their computer, either written manually or with the help of tools, but the rate at which articles are submitted. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the second paragraph of WP:MASSCREATE a slower rate of submission (creating the pages in small batches) can increase the likelihood of approval but it does not remove the requirement for approval.

And no, it doesn't make a distinction, for two reasons. First, I see a difference between a skeleton framework, like the one you linked above, and a template; for the former, the majority of content in the article is from the creator, not the framework, while for the latter almost all of content is from the template, not the creator.

Second, it is irrelevant whether the template is being populated automatically or by a human acting in a bot-like manner; it is impossible to distinguish between the two without an admission, and there is no difference in the disruption caused when the task is done on a large scale. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No disruption occurs until the articles are submitted to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The proposed principle reflects the WP:MEATBOT section of our bot policy: "For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance." As for speed, on 29 March 2021 Lugnuts created 500(Correction: 86) nearly-identical pages over a span of 10 hours. Roughly half are redirects, so we're talking 25 per hour or a new article every 2.4 minutes. This is absolutely considered high speed/large scale mass article creation and falls under our current bot approval requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The proposed principle forbids the use of templates without bot-approval whether or not they are used to create high-speed edits. Circumstances specific to Lugnuts should be put forth in a finding. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Another mis-representation from dlthewave. If you click that link dated from 29th March, it is LIMITED to 500 results, when it actually pulls back just less than <150 new pages on that date. 86 of them are new pages. The first batch is from 12:16 to 13:46 (1.5 hours) with 50 new pages. The second batch is from 17:45 to 18:35 (<1hr) with 35 new pages. It's not too inconceivable to believe that one person could spend an hour in the afternoon and another hour in the evening doing creation of similar articles like this with a base skeleton as a starting point. No automation, just a bit of copy + paste. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected it to 86, but my point still stands: This is the type of rapid, large-scale article creation that requires bot approval regardless of the method used. –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That Lugnuts is still disputing that their mass-creation of articles at a rate of one every 1-2 minutes was disruptive should be considered when and if they ever appeal their TBAN on stub creation, and indeed should be considered in assessing whether any of the measures imposed so far has actually addressed their behaviour properly. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you show where bot-approval is "required" ? I'd like to read up on that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATE, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:FAIT. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Since I saw this as restating current policy, rather than creating new restrictions, I felt that a principle would be more appropriate, although I find the difference between principles and remedies blurry at times - I assume you have the same opinion of #Bot-like mass-content creation and #Bot-like mass deletion nominations? BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I see principles as answering the question "why do we have policy X?". This can provide additional context for findings of fact, to assist in explaining why a given user's actions are being interpreted in a certain way. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for the response; my intention here was to restate that semi-automated mass article creation requires approval, and present a relevant example of a tool whose use results in article creation become semiautomated; templates like the ones I show in my evidence. Looking at past principles, I believe Eastern European mailing list is itself an example of such "relevant examples" in use.

As for why the use of templates results in article creation becoming semi-automated, that is because they are a key element in the process of going from manual article creation to fully automated article creation.

However, I note the EE mailing list case was many years ago, and I can see why you may consider the use of "relevant examples" to be closer to a remedy than a principle. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Bot-like mass-content creation

5) Policies on bot-like editing and mass creation require that approval from BRFA is obtained prior to the large-scale creation of similar content pages, regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not previously used as a principle, but based on WP:MEATBOT and WP:MASSCREATE. It supports #Mass article creation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an alternative principle to #Templated Article Creation. It is intended to open the possibility of a counterpart principle related to deletion nominations, #Bot-like mass deletion nominations, while also addressing Isaacl's concerns about Templated Article Creation's focus on the use of templates as a tool in mass article creation. In conjunction with #Net positive (2) it emphasizes that quality should not be sacrificed for either speed or quantity. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is much better than the above principle and something that seems very reasonable. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Bot-like mass deletion nominations

6) When an editor engages in high-speed deletion nominations they are expected to avoid nominating articles for reasons that an attentive human would identify as not applicable, regardless of whether the nominations are done using a bot, with the assistance of a script, or without programmatic assistance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not previously used as a principle, but based on WP:MEATBOT. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a counterpart to #Bot-like mass-content creation. Like #Net positive (2), which it builds on, it is based on the text of WP:MEATBOT; the functional effect would be to require WP:BEFORE searches when large numbers of articles are nominated for deletion by a single editor. This does cause issues related to the reversion of mass article creations that present as a fait accompli, but absent that issue I believe it would resolve some of the issues raised in this case and needs consideration.

Under the bot policy, I believe that nominations through Twinkle would count as "assisted". BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd see no problem with a community-authorized large scale deletion of articles lacking neutrality, even if some of these articles might be notable.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right; as written, the principle would cause issues with the nomination of articles for reasons other than notability. I've now adjusted it to hopefully address those problems. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think just like article creation, mass deletion of articles should involve some kind of discussion. And similarly, robotic nominations, especially mass ones, should be avoided per the fait accompli arguments made above. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I, frankly, do not see why a very large set of articles created by a single editor where, as far as anyone can ascertain, basic rule of notability were not followed, should not be deleted in bulk. It is simply not humanly possible to review ten, or twenty, or thirty thousand articles and do a WP:BEFORE on each one, just on the off-chance that some of them may be notable. Let's consider the Carlossuarez46 Iranian village case - he created thousands and thousands of articles about supposed villages that actually did not exist. The response had to be equally broad-brush. Anything else is simply allowing a fait accompli to be presented as such mass-creation is unlikely to be discovered for a significant amount of time. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Levels of consensus

7) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Editors who disagree with that global consensus should challenge it at a level that it can be changed; it is disruptive to challenge it at a local level.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels of consensus. It supports #Global consensus has been overridden. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Closing and levels of consensus

8) Closers are required to reject any local consensus that would overrule a global consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In the context of evidence presented by BilledMammal and Dlthewave regarding local consensus overriding global consensus. It supports #Global consensus has been overridden. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Affirmation of our existing levels of consensus policy, enforced by discretionary sanctions, would be extremely helpful in situations where admins improperly close AfDs based on local consensus that contradicts P&Gs. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That might actually work; DRV has the same issues that AfD has in terms of local consensus which is why it doesn't resolve the issue, but putting AE in the loop as a check on problematic behaviour in terms of supporting a local consensus might. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Processes perform poorly when overloaded

9) Wikipedia's processes, when placed under a load that exceeds their capacity, perform poorly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious, but needs to be said. Supports #AfD is overloaded. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

At wit's end

10) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Palestine-Israel articles. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This has already been suggested by Robert McClenon, but I want to present it again to emphasize my belief that one way or another draconian measures will need to be taken to address this situation and prevent it from returning to ArbCom next year with a new group of parties. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the overloading of deletion processes as a consequence of efforts to address the mass creation of stubs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I disagree with S Marshall's proposed finding of fact for two reasons. First, I don't think nominating large numbers of articles, where large is defined as being rates above what some editors believe AfD can handle (four a day, or twenty a week) is a behavioural issue; editors are attempting to work through significant backlogs, and it is not unreasonable for them to nominate articles at a fraction of the rate that they were created.

Second, for the actual behavioural issues, I believe many of them are as a consequence of the overloaded processes:

• Arguments that contradict policy are likely due to the lack of time to find the evidence that would support arguments that comply with policy or otherwise confirm that such evidence does not exist,
• Canvassing is likely as a result of frustration with the process making the "wrong" decision; those who support deleting an article believing that it was kept through keep voters have made arguments that contradict policy, while those who support keeping it believing that they didn't have time to address the issues.
• Personal attacks and aspersions are likely as a consequence of increased tensions caused by all of the above.

The issues with the quality of nominations by some editors is also related to the overloading of processes, in this case the article review process. As part of efforts to address this some editors take shortcuts in the nomination process, resulting in mistakes that would not have been made under other circumstances.

Dealing with just the behavioural issues alone won't "break the back" of this dispute; we would be back here next year with a new group of parties. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

it is not unreasonable for them to nominate articles at a fraction of the rate that they were created. when that rate overloads the process and/or fails to provide those interested in the article/topic a reasonable opportunity to find sources for each article nominated then it is an unreasonable rate of nomination. The community needs to identify a process that can sort through a large number of articles relatively quickly to determine which are notable and which aren't without overwhelming anybody. I broadly agree with the most of the rest of this though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The opportunity to find sources isn't limited to the duration of an AfD, as the article can simply be recreated if more are found afterwards. The nominations themselves are on record permanently, so there's no rush to do anything: anyone can go through them and search for sources at their own leisure. With that in mind there can be no serious objection against "overloading", and even if there was, it's a bit late to complain about it now that AfD is beyond its capacity to process an actual overload such as this. Avilich (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason, in general, why the rate of creation should somehow impact the rate of deletion. Deletion requires the involvement of others, creation does not. So while mass creation of things from databases, shouldn't be allowed without a consensus from a discussion, mass nominations should also be avoided without that same consensus. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Global consensus has been overridden

2) Discussions have been closed in a manner that overrules global consensus, due to editors choosing to challenge such consensus in lower level discussions, and due to closers not feeling empowered to reject local consensuses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per evidence from Dlthewave, BilledMammal. It can be traced from the principles #Levels of consensus and #Closing and levels of consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Mass article creation

3) Multiple editors have engaged in the meatbot-like creation of articles without previously obtaining consensus. This has created a fait accompli situation that the community and current processes are incapable of addressing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per evidence presented by Mangoe (1, 2), S Marshall, BilledMammal (1, 2). It can be traced from the principles #Fait accompli, #Net positive or #Net positive (2), and #Templated Article Creation or #Bot-like mass-content creation. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD is overloaded

4) Due to efforts to address the mass creation of articles, processes at AfD have become overloaded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

S Marshall's evidence and Liz's evidence. In addition, it is supported by discussions linked in the evidence at the village pump and ANI, as well as the discussions on this page; the community agrees that the deletion process is buckling under the weight imposed on it, but is incapable of addressing the issue. It can be traced from the principle #Processes perform poorly when overloaded. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Standard Discretionary sanctions

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all deletion discussions, broadly construed. In line with editor expectations #2, editors are expected to abide by policy on local consensuses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Traced from #Global consensus has been overridden. This is a copy of standard discretionary sanctions authorizations, with the addition of the section sentence. From what I can see, current deletion processes are incapable of dealing with the behavioural issue of editors pushing for a local consensus in contravention of WP:LOCALCON, and the only way I can see to correct this is to enable discretionary sanctions, and clarify that one of the policies that editors are expected to abide by is LOCALCON.

This will allow the behavioural issue to be addressed, and hopefully improve the quality of discussion at AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

As I discussed in another section, it's not clear to me that authorizing any administrator to impose sanctions at their discretion will be able to resolve the underlying tension between guidance being set through RFCs and guidance being set by codifying practice. The "consensus can change" principle and Wikipedia's guidance for determining rough consensus, which doesn't require closers to give priority to current guidelines, means every deletion discussion is a potential venue to revisit guidelines (though it should be done in recognition of what current guidelines say). If the community wants to avoid never-ending discussions in every deletion discussion, it must decide on a different approach for determining rough consensus and on how to revise guidance from the bottom up. isaacl (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's where LOCALCON comes in, which makes it clear that broader consensus cannot be revisited by local discussions.

Further, attempts to revisit them in local discussions is disruptive, both per WP:IDHT, as it results in the perpetuation of disputes that the community has settled, and per WP:DE in general, as by creating a policy violation that must eventually be corrected it disrupts the building of the encyclopedia. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Authorizing administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion isn't the right tool, though, to resolve policy-based disagreements. Administrators have the authority now to issue blocks for violations of policy. Current English Wikipedia traditions allow for discussion of differing views on consensus, and so administrators are understandably wary of forestalling these discussions. The community should, if it feels it to be necessary, agree upon new procedures for establishing and revisiting guidance for standards of having an article. Administrators can then enforce these community procedures as needed, without the need for discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl:, I agree that's the way it should go, but we already had a big RfC for sports notability (and apparently now train stations too) which editors are openly disregarding at AfD with no admin enforcement. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Partial suspension of discretionary sanctions

2) Until the review of the awareness process is complete, discretionary sanctions within AfD do not apply to new editors and alerts must not be provided to them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The issues that we are facing here aren't with new editors; our current processes can already deal with disruptive new editors at AfD. In addition, the alerts for discretionary sanctions as they are currently formulated involve biting them, in line with #Biting new editors via sanctions. As such, until the review of the awareness process is complete, I don't believe any discretionary sanctions imposed should apply to new editors. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Since every editor is potentially a contributor to deletion discussions, I think it would be better to alter the deletion policy to encompass any new guidance that is enforceable by administrators. The new guidance would just become part of the base rules for participation in deletion discussions, and thus no special alerts are required. As policy change is the responsibility of the community, it would have to agree upon the new guidance and alter the policy accordingly. isaacl (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Limits at AfD

3) To address the overloading of AfD editors are restricted to one deletion nomination per day. Nominations of groups of articles are counted as a single nomination under this restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Traced from #AfD is overloaded and #At wit's end, and the policy basis is WP:DE, specifically that too many nominations disrupts progress toward improving an article and by extension building the encyclopedia. The number has been chosen based on John Pack Lambert's current community restriction, but can be adjusted up or down. Enforcement would likely be through discretionary sanctions, but other methods may also be suitable.

My personal belief is that this is not suitable; I don't feel it is strongly grounded in policy because the opposite argument can be made, that the restriction will disrupt progress towards improving the encyclopedia by preventing us from deleting inappropriate articles. It would also strengthen the fait accompli from mass article creation without consensus, and may result in gaming the system by increasing the number of prods and bold redirects reverted.

However, it would also address most of the locus of the dispute, and likely prevent this case returning to ArbCom. In addition, it might bring some benefits, in that processes outside of AfD would be sought to rectify the issue caused by the mass creation of articles without consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverting article mass creation outside consensus

4) To address the mass creation of articles without consensus, in violation of WP:MASSCREATE, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:FAIT, all mass created articles sourced solely to statistical sources such as ESPNcricinfo and Olympedia are to be moved to a suitable location outside of article space. These articles can be moved back to article space in groups following an RfC endorsing their creation, or individually following improvement by any editor who is not explicitly restricted from doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Traced from #Mass article creation, #Fait accompli, #Filibustering, and #At wit's end. It is based on WP:FAIT, WP:MASSCREATE, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:ONUS. It is also based on WP:OWN; as editors do not own the articles they created, this is not a sanction but instead a general remedy.

Like #Limits at AfD this is a draconian remedy, but one that will address the issue by removing the root cause for the tension at AfD; nominations will naturally slow, although this could be guaranteed through the implementation of both this and #Limits at AfD, and the general situation should stabilize. In addition, I believe it to be well supported by policy, and if it is implemented would also remove the policy-based objections to #Limits at AfD.

Sourced solely is because many of these articles have since been improved; if they have been, then they should not be moved out of article space. Similarly, any editor who is not explicitly restricted from doing so is intended to permit editors who are otherwise topic banned from article creation to improve these articles and restore them to article space.

As a general comment on both this and #Limits at AfD, I believe that one or the other is necessary to prevent this case from returning here, and so I am proposing them for consideration even though I suspect they are too draconian for the committee to accept after just one case. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the basis of a good idea. It's not quite perfect as written

• Consensus should be sought to determine specific sets of articles that are both mass created and based on specific statistical sources (e.g. articles based on ESPNcricinfo and Olympedia would be two separate sets)
• Need to get consensus on where to put them (and if that somewhere is Draft: whether they are eligible for G13).
• Articles that have already been improved should be excluded from this, and so some way of determining that needs to be agreed.

These are relatively minor issues though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by S Marshall

Proposed principles

Role of the Arbitration Committee

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Duh, But it seems to need to be said.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And agreed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to behavioural issues at Articles for Deletion and Proposed Deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@ScottyWong: I agree that the scope of the case allows for MfD, DRV, etc to be part of the case. However, I would suggest that based on the evidence submitted so far that those areas have not been shown to be the locus of the dispute. This is also not to say I agree with this wording exactly - I am continuing to examine new evidence and we have 10 more days for evidence to be submitted. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While the bulk of the behavioral issues with individual editors occurred at AfD or in the midst of a PROD, I don't see why this case needs to be limited to those two areas. "Deletion-related editing" could apply to any XfD, PROD, speedy deletion, as well as DRV. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Interaction with the Universal Code of Conduct

2) Use of the AfD and/or Proposed Deletion processes by good faith editors, no matter how prolific, is consistent with and permitted by all four limbs of section 3.3 of the Universal Code of Conduct. Good faith use of AfD and/or Proposed Deletion never constitutes "Hounding" under section 3.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct. But sarcasm, mockery or aggression in deletion discussions could amount to a breach.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I could not be more opposed to the very idea of substituting the UCoC for our already-in-place behavioral policies. This is not what the committee was elected to do. --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it's important to get this point firmly nailed down.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As a general comment, I don't think there will be much appetite to cite UCOC for points that can be covered by our local policies and norms. In any event, the assertion that any number of deletion nominations could "never" constitute hounding is overstated. I'm not saying the AfDs and PRODs discussed in this case constituted the wikihounding of anyone, but I can certainly imagine circumstances in which an excessive and retaliatory targeting of a particular editor's contributions could do so. Thus, the "in good faith" qualification is important to the proposed second sentence as well as the first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Tweaked.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A relevant question is when it would be appropriate to "target" an editors creations; WP:HOUNDING creates exceptions for correcting related problems on multiple articles, but it is disputed how it applies here. For example, I have recently been targeting BlackJack's creations; while this is uncontroversial because they have been indefinitely banned since 2017, but would it still be uncontroversial if they were an active editor in good standing? BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My feeling for WP:HOUNDING has always been that if an editor makes many substantively similar edits across multiple articles, taking exception to any one of them is sufficient reason to go over all of them (reverting, nominating for deletion, etc.) Otherwise we end up with WP:FAIT problems. If someone adds the same text to twenty articles, or creates twenty similar stubs on the same topic, you can revert / revise / nominate all of them at once in the same way, and can use their history to find them all, without it being hounding - you're going after that one action across multiple articles, you're not going after the editor. However, this requires that the edits or created articles be extremely similar, such that the underlying reason you're going over them is because you're treating them as one "action" being disputed - going over every single edit or article an editor ever made with a fine-toothed comb with an implicit underlying premise of "these need to be reviewed because they were done by a bad editor who has WP:COMPETENCE / WP:POV / whatever issues" is a bigger deal and would usually require some discussion reaching the conclusion that the editor themselves is the problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's standard practice to go through an editor's contributions if there's a recurring issue, for example copyright violation issues are typically dealt with by reviewing an offender's entire history. Targeting an editor's work (or the appearance thereof) isn't evidence of hounding/harassment in and of itself. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox, this is not a proposal to substitute the UCoC for our normal behavioural rules! It's meant to say that the UCoC does not apply to the behaviours we're thinking about here. In other words I'm trying to limit the application of the UCoC which as written is horribly broad and pervasive. Interpreted strictly as written the UCoC would affect all our decisions about conduct and many of our decisions about content. We should come in hard and early to say it only applies where our standard behavioural rules fail. But Arbcom can't say that... so I'm asking Arbcom to make a statement about how the UCoC applies to this case. I hope every Arbcom case forever more includes a statement of how and why Arbcom has decided the UCoC doesn't apply.—S Marshall T/C 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

3) In biographies of living people, Wikipedia policy requires editors to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AfD is not for cleanup

3) Editors are asked not to use the Articles for Deletion process where the article they're considering could, with sufficient effort, be brought into line with content policies. There is no deadline for this to be done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noting one exception: there is a deadline for adding at least one source to entirely unsourced BLPs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a pedantic point, but we still don't want people to use afd for those. Blpprod is faster and more consistent. —Cryptic 21:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

And no less pedantically, editors are meant to insist on high-quality sources (plural), so the deadline to add at least one source isn't greatly helpful. The stressor articles here are sourced to sports databases which, by and large, give minimal biographical information.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this as actionable. As a rule, nominators do not think that the candidate article can be so improved, so this turns into something to score points against them when they are :wrong: (meaning the article is kept). Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not meant to be actionable. I'm proposing it as a fof.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Infinite deferral

4) In practice, in many cases where an article could theoretically be improved, any editor trying to "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" can be put off indefinitely. Some parties to this case are working on backlogs more than a decade old.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cause of tension

5) Because of infinite deferral and the not for cleanup rule, no venue exists where editors can effectively "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is the underlying cause of behaviours by TPH: I think his motivation is to clear old backlogs.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's also worth pointing out that (unless I've missed something) there is no community consensus that there should be such a venue. Certainly the community does not have a single view on how harmful or otherwise the existence of old backlogs is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thryduulf - In the banal sense that no RFC ever declared “backlogs are bad” (that I am aware of), yes. In the sense that many (most?) of the active members of Wikipedia are engaged in clearing backlogs of one kind or another (NPP, unreferenced articles, poorly referenced articles, move discussions, merge discussion and merged not carried out etc. etc.), obviously the community is pretty clear that backlogs are bad. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP: Everybody (pretty much) agrees that no backlog is preferable to a backlog and that shorter ones are preferable to longer ones. What there is not agreement on is how harmful long backlogs are. Some people view them as something that should be worked through at (nearly) any cost - it being more important to clear the backlog as soon as possible than ensure no errors get made in the process (if we accidentally lose something we want it's no big deal). Others view that attitude as very significantly more harmful than the existence of the backlog - it being more important to ensure that we make no errors than to clear the backlog quickly. c.f. m:Eventualism and m:Immediatism. To be clear the range of views is a spectrum between extremes not a binary, but the only clear community consensus is that neither absolute extreme position is desirable (there is clearly not going to be a consensus to just delete everything in a backlog now; nor is there a consensus that being unfixed for a long time should never even be considered as part of a deletion discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATE shows a pretty clear consensus against creating practically-undoable/checkable sets of articles. WP:MEATBOT clarifies that this applies to hand-made articles. Both are the result of high-level consensuses. FOARP (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus that these should not be mass created, but that's not relevant here (articles that don't exist are not in any backlogs). What is relevant is the lack of consensus about how to deal with them once they have been created (and more broadly how to deal with backlogs that exist for other reasons). Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

TenPoundHammer

1) The committee thanks TenPoundHammer for his diligence in working through old backlogs, but asks him to moderate his use of AfD while doing so. TenPoundHammer is restricted to a maximum of three AfD nominations per day.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In the AN/I thread I proposed a cap of one AfD nomination per day, but the community didn't really like that. This proposal is deliberately toned down.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Does it include other XfDs or DRV? Also, would April Fools' Day joke nominations be excluded from the count? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As written it doesn't include other XfDs or DRV, but does cover April Fools' Day joke noms (which are a pain in the behind but someone other than TPH can do the cleanup). Have I missed evidence that would justify a broader scope?—S Marshall T/C 19:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall: As someone who has participated in Wikipedia's April Fools celebration, I believe if TPH follows the rules for fools then their joke XfDs should be exempted from the three-per-day limitation. However, April Fools is just minutia in the broader scheme of things - for MfDs, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria, while I have no comments for other venues. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is, I think, a reasonable request. If TPH was closer to the mark of consensus with his delete-vote track record, this would not be an issue. But, he really isn't and the likelihood of flooding of potentially bad nominations is problematic. This seems like a moderate solution — Mr. Hammer can pick his three least favorites every day, and chances are good that he'll put some thought into it and not gun for things that are borderline. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• See, this is what I was afraid that this ARB request would turn into if TPH was included. TPH is somebody who engenders lots of negative reactions from other editors. I think it's unfair to single out his behavior and ignore the behavior of other editors, such as JohnPackLambert. pbp 16:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, I've posted a few proposed principles in my own section but have held off on proposing any findings or remedies and plan to wait a couple days at least before doing so. Take from that what you will. -- Vaulter 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, PBP's point is fair. He's not the worst. I've proposed a remedy about TPH because in his case I can think of a thing that I can point to and say with my hand on my heart, "this will help". With the others, I'm more stuck.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing

2) All four parties to this case are banned from the following behaviours:

2a) Using the ping feature in deletion discussions.

2b) Using any individual editor's talk page to attract attention to an ongoing deletion discussion, except that the party may write about and link to a deletion discussion on their own talk page.

2c) Using Wikipedia space or Wikipedia talk space to attract attention to an ongoing deletion discussion, except that the party may place a brief, neutrally worded note on appropriate places in the relevant WikiProjects. For the purposes of this clause, the Article Rescue Squadron is a relevant WikiProject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Clumsy, I know. Sorry. Struggling with phrasing this.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the ping point. I have tended to stop adding AfD to my watchlist (let alone anything like ANI pages) and have quite often asked to be pinged if I need to check back on something. I think editors such as GiantSnowman ask for pings fairly often as well. I get the point of what you're suggesting, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. There's a difference between canvassing and simply making someone who you know is going to have experience, knowledge or something to to a debate. I don't have a solution for better wording this, but I would be concerned that a users talk page could turn into something it's perhaps not designed to usually be - JPL already seems to use their talk page in an unusual way, for example. Would this simply lead to a lot more of that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For 2b: How about the customary notification to notify an author that one of their articles is sent to AfD?

For 2c: No opinion, but suggest re-wording to ...brief, neutrally-worded note on appropriate WikiProject locations, including the Article Rescue Squadron.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't like this. Is canvassing really the issue here? Carrite (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there's more than one issue. There are diffs that show canvassing, and there was concern about canvassing in the AN/I thread, so I've proposed a remedy about canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing most certainly is an issue here. See [9] for a brief summary of one issue. The ARS folks are arguably another. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Stifle

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collection of knowledge about diverse topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What Wikipedia is not

2) Wikipedia is not, amongst other things, a sports almanac nor an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not intended to capture absolutely every piece of information known to humanity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The closest I can see regarding sports almanac specifically in WP:NOT is in WP:NOTNEWS #2 (and maybe possibly #4), and peeking at us in the spirit, but not the words, of NOTDATABASE #3. Is there another place we should look? That part of the draft principle does not seem supported by policy. --Izno (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, yes, I can see the spirit there also. However, WP:NOT somewhat verbosely does provide a list of things Wikipedia is not. Particularly, if we wanted it to say that Wikipedia isn't an almanac (of any of various kinds), I am certain it would after the nearly 2-decades this policy has existed. It doesn't use that word. So, is there somewhere else almanacs are specifically called out as something Wikipedia is not? I'm not trying to be pedantic here; WP:NOT is probably the policy with the most parts of it subject to a degree of interpretation in its application (and certainly the degree of consensus the policy holds on any given day). And certainly the two sections implicated by this principle, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS. The words "sports almanac" need more direct support than a vague link to WP:NOT. --Izno (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree with this, however I would welcome the comments of the arbs as to whether this is something they can rule on. Inclusion of "almanacs" and "gazeteers" in WP:5P is highly problematic, even though WP:5P is ultimately just an essay. FOARP (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: I would considered it covered by the words of NOTDATABASE; specifically To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is true that it doesn't meet the words of any of the four examples, but I don't consider the examples to be exhaustive - your opinion may differ. BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT does speak to this, specifically Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary which says Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. I believe that precludes Wikipedia being a sports almanac, but as it doesn't explicitly say that the link may also be too vague. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not (2)

2.1) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Faits accomplis

3) Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns – which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus – are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without necessarily seeking to conflate anyone's actions with those of a bot's, or conflate this draft with much of the discussion above, WP:BOTISSUE may be inspiring. --Izno (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I like the idea. But as I read it, one person providing clear advice that something is controversial or incorrect, would then require the person receiving that request to pursue discussion and dispute resolution. That seems backwards. I think that someone upset about the action of another should be the one expected to raise the issue to a wider audience. Now, if that wider audience has spoken, then I think the person being so counselled should have the responsibility for pursuing discussion and dispute resolution. I think that is exactly what you are going for here, I just don't think you're there yet. Hobit (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

4) Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Policies, guidelines, and consensus

5) With the exception of a very few policies with legal implications, policies and guidelines are not intended to be applied with strict rigidity. They may – even should – be ignored if doing so would improve the encyclopedia. Where the interpretation and application of a policy or guideline to a specific situation is not clear, it is appropriate to discuss how to do so and come to a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you're missing some words from the last sentence of this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

One reason for having policies and guidelines is to ensure some sort of consistency with the quality of articles (and as a by-product, at AfDs). If a closing admin is approaching the task of evaluating arguments without a close eye on the appropriate guidelines then it'll end up as a lottery and quality will suffer. The wording "strict rigidity" implies some sort of tyrannical and inflexible approach but considering the amount of time it takes to agree the wording of our policies and guidelines, a closing admin should stick with the simple interpretation of the chosen wording unless there are very good reasons to depart from it. If "doing so would improve the encyclopedia" was not flagged or discussed at the AfD, perhaps the closing admin should participate to make their opinions heard and leave the closing to another admin. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Closing of deletion discussions

6) It is not for administrators closing a deletion discussion to discount contributions which the closer perceives do not correspond to one or more policies or guidelines unless the contribution is completely at odds to the policy or guideline; closers should always consider that the contributor has taken the policy and guideline into consideration and is attempting to apply it to the situation at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What is "completely at odds"? You incorrectly kept this article despite the keep voters being quite completely at odds with NSPORT's clear requirement for significant coverage. Here you incorrectly labeled the closure a "classic supervote". Your low standards entail ignoring the policies and guidelines themselves: you can't have those and near-equality of votes at the same time. Avilich (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your asserting that a closure or !vote is "incorrect" does not make it so, but in any case this isn't about me. If you have an objection to one of my AFD closures, you know full well where DRV is.

As for the substantive point, "completely at odds" means someone whose argument is so off-piste that they clearly haven't read the policy or guideline in question. If it is reasonably possible that someone has read it, then the closer should take the contribution into account, as policies and guidelines are not immutable and are subject to application by local consensus to a given topic or matter. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a specious argument. DRV never overturns afds to delete, and hardly ever even to a real relist, no matter how objectively awful the close; the best that can be hoped for is to reopen it, ripe for another no consensus close by someone else looking at all the baseless bolded "keep" votes. —Cryptic 09:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not a specious argument, it's just plain wrong, as can be evidenced by a quick look at DRV logs. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to take a look at the DRV logs following this comment. Since 1 April there have been 44 requests at DRV that:

• Were unambiguous appeals of AfD closures or the speedy deletion of articles
• Have been closed, other than procedurally.

Of those:

• 3 were appeals of some form of keep closure.
• 8 were appeals of some form of redirect closure
• 25 were appeals of some form of delete closure/speedy deletion
• 7 were appeals of no consensus closures
• 1 was an appeal of a withdrawal

The full stats are below:

Original close	DRV result	Number of discussions
Keep	No consensus	1
Keep	Overturn to no consensus	1
Snow keep	Reopen	1
Redirect	Endorse	2
Redirect	Relist	2
Redirect	No consensus	2
Speedy redirect	Overturn to withdraw	1
Speedy redirect	Relist	1
Delete	Relist	1
Delete	Endorse	15
Delete	Overturn to keep	1
Delete	Overturn to redirect	1
Delete	Overturn to draftify	2
Speedy delete	Endorse	2
Speedy delete	Reopen	1
Speedy delete	No consensus	1
Speedy delete	Restore	1
No consensus	Endorse	3
No consensus	Overturn to delete	1
No consensus	Relist	1
No consensus	No consensus	1
No consensus	Overturn to moot (see Afd)	1
Withdrawn	Endorse but reclose	1

Many of the endorsed deletions explicitly allowed for recreation as a draft, article or redirect (which would be open to a new XfD), and some endorse closures were without prejudice to a fresh AfD. I have not looked to see what happened after the DRV in any of thes cases. At least most of the discussions where DRV failed to reach a consensus were relisted.

I have not looked at what the final outcome was when a discussion was relisted or reopened, although I did not some red links and at least one relisted discussion is still open.

Of the 11 to 19* requests were it was theoretically possible for the outcome to be overturn to delete, this happened once. *I have not attempted to distinguish between "delete then replace by redirect" and "redirect without deleting history" outcomes, in either case someone who thinks the resultant redirect should be deleted also has the option of nominating it at RfD but I have not looked to see if any were. My feeling is that this presents too small a sample size to draw firm conclusions, especially regarding appeals of "keep" closures. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It happened zero times. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 18#Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene) was explicitly not an overturning of the deletion discussion. Exercise: When was the last time a deletion discussion overturned to delete at drv? I'll wait for you to look. (And most the outcomes you label "relist" above, and that were labeled "relist" by the drv closer, just reverted the afd close and stuck the same afd back in on the current day's log. Those are reopens. I see only two exceptions in your dataset, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 23#Pushpam Priya Choudhary and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 19#El Comité 1973.) —Cryptic 14:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The Laodice page was actually deleted at least, though both the AfD and DRV closing statements were serious WP:CIR gaffes, it must be said. Avilich (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The closing admin's role is to impartially close the AfD in a way that reflects the consensus (if there is one) - not by counting !votes but by evaluating the strength of the arguments against policies and guidelines. Leaving aside the rare instance where a local consensus occurs to disregard policies/guidelines, Your suggestion is unclear on whether the !voter specifically indicates their understanding of whichever policiy/guidelines their !vote/contribution departs from, or whether a closing admin using their own judgement to make that assumption. I would suggest that if the latter, the closing admin is not being impartial. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternatives to deletion, and BEFORE

7) Participants and closers of deletion discussions should assume that nominators and other participants have had regard to WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is it clear evidence if I can find valid sources inside of 20 seconds? Sure, it could just be a simple mistake. But if it happens much at all there is either a WP:BEFORE issue or a WP:CIR issue. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Too many times to count, I've seen editors at NCORP-related AfDs comment with variations of "Here's a bunch of sources, bundles of coverage, obv nom didn't bother with BEFORE" only to find that the sources are regurgitated press releases and are useless for the purposes of establishing notability. I guess it might be better to AGF on the BEFORE - if a pattern emerges over time with the same editor, that's a problem. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

AGF is a good default. I will note that where you see the bright line on sources counting isn't always where consensus falls on those issues. So sometimes the issue isn't BEFORE, it's what counts as a source. And, on a related note, if there is a clear merge target, it's pretty clear that ATD isn't being followed very well... Hobit (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Closures contrary to consensus

8) It will rarely if ever be appropriate for an administrator to close an AFD with an outcome which none of the contributors to the discussion has suggested, whether or not the closer cites WP:ATD or anything else when doing so. If an administrator in the process of closing a discussion considers that some alternatives have not been broached, they should resile from closing the discussion and participate in it instead.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In my opinion, it should never occur unless it is one of the non-negotiable policies with legal implications. Are there other times when it might be OK? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't wrong, but what's the purpose of this as FoF? That is, what kind of remedy is it intended to support? None of the parties to the case are (as far as I can tell) being accused of administrative misconduct, which is the only thing a FoF would really be relevant to. --Aquillion (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• @HighKing: Vacuously, if nobody at all has contributed to a discussion and the admin speedy-redirects or implements something clear and obvious. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing

9) Whilst it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. Both the content of the message and the location where it is posted can be assessed when considering whether a message meets these criteria.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiability and the burden of proof

10) The burden of proof that content is verifiable and/or a subject is notable falls on those seeking to include or retain content, and not on those seeking to remove it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but that doesn't remove the requirement for editors to demonstrate the notability of any articles that they create or ague to keep. By upholding our WP:BURDEN policy and bringing our practices into harmony with what is essentially a universal requirement for all types of reputable publications, we can eliminate much of the conflict and unnecessary bureaucracy that surrounds our article creation and deletion processes. –dlthewave ☎ 05:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It falls on everyone. Those who want to delete need to show that a reasonable attempt has been made to find sources and none came up (WP:BEFORE). Those who wish to keep something need to show it is true (WP:BURDEN). To do otherwise it tantamount to requiring every part of Wikipedia be sourced--something that would be ideal, but not something that falls within ARBCOM's purview. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You cannot prove a negative. So no, the burden of proof is on those who seek to retain content. Lurking shadow (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A) You can most certainly prove a negative. It's very common to prove that certain algorithms can't exist for example. B) This ignores the tension between BEFORE and BURDEN. Our goal, as a whole, should be to get our notable topics sourced and our non-notable topics removed. Doing that correctly does, and should, involve people actively working to show one or the other, not one person going "I don't believe it, prove it to me" without doing a lick of work themselves. Hobit (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The most valuable asset of Wikipedia editors is time. To help everyone be more effective, we need to encourage editors to do any necessary sourcing themselves, rather than imposing a tax on future editors. (On a side note, yes, in an axiomatic framework, you can demonstrate that introducing a given statement would lead to a contradiction. In an article for deletion discussion, though, we're trying to convince each other that an article meets or fails to meet a standard for having an article. That's going to be highly dependent on the receptiveness of the participants.) isaacl (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the most valuable asset of Wikipedia editors is their ability to collaborate with other editors. One editor may be good at research, another at wordsmithing, a third at policy interpretation, a fourth at admin tasks, a fifth at guiding discussions to remain civil, a sixth at style and layout, a seventh at locating images, ... and so forth. While it is certainly good for editors to do their own heavy lifiting, don't dismiss that editors team up into projects and collaborate in many, many ways. A real example--User:Chris the speller has saved my butt countless times and probably doesn't even know it. Not everyone is an expert at everything nor should they be expected to be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Those two things are complementary. Successful collaboration involves being respectful of each other's time. In this specific instance, the skill in question is being able to find appropriate evidence that a topic meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article. Being skilled in all matters is not necessary for this. I agree we should encourage collaboration for article creation, with discussion and co-ordination between editors, rather than one editor acting independently and giving a bill to the community at large for tidying up their work. This can be quite lightweight—various WikiProjects, for example, create lists of desired articles. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that people should be respectful of other's time. I don't think there should be a policy that focuses on that. How could it be enforced? What measure? With this being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it seems to me that this measure is counter to the basic purpose. Does it stink? Yep. Is it more work for others? Of course. But Wikipedia was not created for the "experienced wikipedians" to have an easy time volunteering. Sometimes what we do here is extra work and that's okay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If you mean there shouldn't be a single policy statement saying that, sure. It's a principle that gets baked into the procedures that the community agrees upon. Asking that someone take responsibility of ensuring a change is justifiable before making it is one example of how editors are asked to strive not to create extra work for others when they can cite the sources they've used for that change. The community is understanding when editors omit citations, so there are no hard rules on this. But we should be guiding editors towards doing various basic minimal tasks on their own. (With citations, a reasonable pointer to the source is enough; standardized formatting can be dealt with gradually later as time permits.) isaacl (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Changes to guidelines

11) It should not be assumed that editors are familiar with every last guideline or the current versions of them; equally, once on notice of a change to a guideline, it is disruptive for editors to persist in referring to old or deprecated guidelines or versions of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes, sure, although it seems reasonable that different people might interpret a guideline rather differently at times. And that difference in interpretation could easily lead to conflict. Particularly where guidelines contradict each other: for example, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:SPORTSPERSON contradict each other to an extend - one suggesting we're looking for people who have "achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level" (whatever "success" means), and the other that we're looking for those who have "won a significant honor" (and these are really not the same thing all of the time btw). Both of these seem more restrictive than WP:BASIC as well. All of which seems to be leading to people having their preferred flavour of guideline - which is sort of reasonable, until they start putting other people on notice that their interpretation or their favourite guidline is the one that really, really, really matters most. It's also very confusing and is really starting to do my head in fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

12) Giving administrators the right to apply discretionary sanctions in a topic area is useful when there is a clear understanding of what is disruptive. The less clear this is, the less effective and accepted discretionary sanctions will be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Article Rescue Squadron

1) The Article rescue squadron was established in 2007 with a stated goal of improving the encyclopedia and "rescuing" articles listed for deletion. It maintains a rescue list of articles which are currently undergoing consideration of deletion, which is by a considerable margin the most heavily-edited page in its project – and as such, the only main function of the group is to canvass keep !votes to open AFDs. It formerly used a template {{rescue}} before this was deleted after two TFDs (here and here) in 2012. Two of its most prolific members have been topic-banned from the deletion process. 93% of articles listed on the rescue list have received at least one keep !vote from a project member, and over 60% have received two or more !votes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please refer to this statement from the drafters about ARS and this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Stifle: it is arbs purview but to find it as fact there would have to be evidence to support it. At both the case request stage which impacted the scope of this case such that ARS was explicitly not made a focus, and during the actual case, when there was the opportunity to add further editors as parties, no such evidence was given. The evidence phase is obviously not closed so evidence could still be given that say canvassing is a problem in deletion-related conduct but the odds of FoF directed towards ARS strikes me as very unlikely. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Barkeep49: Noted, but ultimately projects cannot do anything themselves and act through their editors. The ARS is a barely-disguised arrangement to solicit keep !votes at AFDs regardless of article quality; its other project pages are dead. It is within the arbitrators' purview to find this as a fact and rule on it accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As the response there noted, wikiprojects are composed of editors, so I suspect it would be easier to just focus on individual editors; it's too late to add parties to the case, but ARS only has a few really active members and one of them is a party already. If it is true that there is a problem with the general behavior of ARS, it should be possible to show that the most active members specifically are part of this problem through evidence. If it's not possible to do this then I doubt you'd be able to demonstrate a larger problem with ARS anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer

2) TenPoundHammer's contributions to the deletion process are a net negative, due to their battleground mentality, bludgeoning, closing inappropriately whilst involved, and nominating so many pages – an average of four a day in April 2022 – as to make it difficult for those seeking to retain them to argue effectively for their retention.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When dealing with the size of the backlogs we currently have, four nominations a day is not a lot. In my evidence I give the example of BlackJack creating 12 articles in 6 minutes; those 12 were part of a broader group of 75 articles created on the same day. The majority of them need to be deleted, and requiring editors to spend weeks doing so compared to the day they took to create would enforce fait accompli. TenPoundHammer's contributions may be a net negative - I have not looked into them - but if they are it is not due to the number of articles that they nominated. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The size of the backlog is completely irrelevant. What matters is that editors must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the nomination of an article for deletion by providing sources and/or otherwise improving the article. When a large number of articles related to a single topic area are simultaneously being considered for deletion, editors are not being given this opportunity. There is also no consensus that "the majority of [the mass-created articles] need to be deleted", indeed if anything I would say that there was a consensus that many of them probably should not be deleted because the subjects are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

On the evidence page, only two were named - I hadn't seen them until I happened to catch this reply. Of those two, Thomas Morley (cricketer) appears in some detail in a book I plucked from the shelf behind me on Norfolk cricket and he has a Wisden obituary. Took two minutes to find them. The other one, William Marriott (cricketer), was described in a contemporary newspaper: "no one who witnessed Marriott’s stay at the wickets and who knew anything about the game could doubt that he possesses capabilities of a very marked order. In the first place his batting is distinguished by confidence and when, to this, is added the possessions of admirable defensive powers that freedom of style and a very considerable judgment, there is not much wanted to substitute a first-rate cricketer". So, although I disagreed very strongly with BlackJack about any number of things, including the creation of stub-like articles, those two have a good chance of having pretty good sourcing associated with them. I'd need to dig back through his creations to identify the other four; maybe all four lack any notability. That's possible, but I wouldn't like to say for certain without checking. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Having just looked at them, I'm sure that a handful need to be considered. The rest need improving. As I say, not my style to produce stubs and then get other people to improve them, but it happened because it was deemed acceptable at the time. I bit like flares in the 70s. Most of those 70-odd articles aren't causing a problem. There are more important fish to fry. Trust me: it's not worth the stress. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of the articles that BlackJack created that day were on notable individuals, including some of the twelve, though my research suggests the majority were not. Unfortunately, that does not help in addressing the problem; since BlackJack failed to include any sources containing WP:SIGCOV when they created the articles, the same search that needs to be done on the non-notable ones also needs to be done on the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to write, that's not entirely fair on BlackJack. Some of the CricInfo profiles he linked to have fairly substantial prose on them, others just a little. It'll tend to be the Middlesex chaps that have prose on them - which is maybe a third+ of them. After that, I'd want to be getting ahold of copies of works like Nottinghamshire Cricketers 1821-1914, Nottinghamshire Cricketers 1919-1939 and The History of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club before I'd be willing to pass too much judgement on who is likely to pass the GNG or not from the Notts contingent (the other two-thirds). You'd be surprised how many times chaps who don't seem overly notable on paper turn out to have done all sorts of interesting things - this bloke at stub level (BlackJack created 11 March 2017) you'd quite probably stick in the same category (especially as it was named simply Francis Marsham when created). The article's nowhere near finished even now fwiw, but I will get to it one day. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Of the articles that BlackJack created that day, 23 have blurbs at CricInfo. Of those 23, 11 contain only one or two sentences and are clearly not WP:SIGCOV. 9 have a single paragraph of coverage; some of those could be argued to be SIGCOV but others are simply statistics in prose form. The final three contain multiple paragraphs and are clearly SIGCOV but I don't think that rate is high enough to say that I was being unfair on BlackJack.

I understand you think that multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV can be found for most of these and I appreciate your efforts in that direction, but I don't think that is likely. In addition, the disruption these mass created articles cause is separate to the exact ratio of notable to non-notable as all of them need to be reviewed for notability, but too many exist for that to happen.

But to return to the original point of this discussion; expecting editors to nominate no more than three articles a day is not a reasonable explanation; even if we assume you are correct and that 75% of these cricket players are notable, the fact that there are still nineteen, from a single day and a single editor, that need to be taken through deletion processes demonstrates this. BilledMammal (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So where's the middle ground? If it's Chitty (cricketer) then I don't think it's usually controversial - I can think of only one case of a cricketer where we have only a surname who I'd consider even remotely qualifies for an article. But if it's someone with 20 or 30 top-level matches, well the work I did way back suggests that they're almost always going to have sources: if you have access to the sources.

I don't necessarily have an answer by the way. I have a feeling, but there are lots of variables. Three a day within a project is probably getting to be too many maybe - certainly for a small project. And would take people away from other work and, probably, lead to angrier and less well argued statements at AfD. There probably is a middle ground though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Article Rescue Squadron

1) For excessive canvassing and vote-stacking, the Wikipedia:Article rescue squadron is disbanded and deprecated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please see a comment by the drafters and a personal comment from me about ARS and this case. If the odds of an FoF about the ARS are very unlikely that would mean this kind of strong remedy is extremely unlikely. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I just want to throw out that while I’m not a fan of the ARS group personally, I don’t feel this accomplishes anything. “Disbanding a group” doesn’t stop its editors from collaborating to accomplish their objectives; the only thing it does is drive that kind of effort off-wiki to places such as Discord chats and other places. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Just checking--are we seriously considering removing a project that has enthusiastic members seeking to improve article content?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: Just to play devil’s advocate here, given what’s been in ANI threads about the ARS there are a number who believe ARS does not improve content and just argues relentlessly for inclusion - therefore they’re more pushing a POV on what is appropriate for the encyclopedia. I reason that was the thought process behind this suggested remedy. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

When you look at the evidence, ARS (and 7&6 in particular) has been one of the most active and consistent improving troubled articles on Wikipedia. Those ANI threads are awful full of fallacies. -- GreenC GreenC 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

While I'm certain that there are "a number" of people who "believe" ARS is bad there also 300+ members of the ARS project who disagree. This is a group of enthusiastic editors who want to improve articles. If any individual who is a member of that project has violated policy in some way, then take action against the individual. Not the project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I agree. Individuals cause issues, not groups unless the fundamental mission of the group is flawed. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There are not 300 active members of ARS. That might be how many are listed on the members list over the last howevermany years, but it's not how many are actually participating today. It's more like 5 or 10. Levivich^[block] 20:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Just because the front page of ARS says that their mission is explicitly to not canvass for votes at AfD and instead to improve article facing deletion, doesn't mean that that's what they do in reality. Sure, some article improvement does take place from time to time. And plenty of canvassing takes place too. However, I have hear a valid reason why improving articles facing deletion needs to be a coordinated group activity. If we get rid of the flawed WikiProject, the members can carry on improving articles on their own. If the canvassing and votestacking continues off-wiki, the evidence will be obvious (i.e. the same editors showing up to the same AfDs over and over). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If articles are improved to the point that they meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, why does it matter how that came about? If you have actual evidence of canvassing and votestacking by one or more editors, then submit it and they will be sanctioned as appropriate. If you do not have such evidence, perhaps consider whether WP:ASPERSIONS applies to your comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I already posted evidence of votestacking on the Evidence page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, like I said, if people think ARS is a problem it would make more sense to focus on its members (it is probably too late to add them now, though the wording of the rule for adding new ones implies that you might be able to squeak someone in if you can make a really good case and convince the arbs), since it comes down to a handful of people, and any misconduct by ARS will be demonstrable as misconduct by some of them. In this case I would just focus on 7&6=thirteen, say; if you think ARS is canvassing you should be able to show that 7&6=thirteen is canvassing. And if you can show that, and can convince ArbCom that 7&6=thirteen needs a topic ban from deletion, then even non-parties will probably want to cool it, since the precedent would be a powerful argument at ANI for anyone whose behavior is substantially similar to whatever evidence you used to get 7&6=thirteen sanctioned. (Of course, I think the evidence against 7&6=thirteen is already overwhelming - though I'm biased because some of it was presented by myself - but I'm waiting to propose specific FoFs and remedies just in case other people add more or have objections to the evidence so far.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Scottywong

Proposed principles

Canvassing at deletion discussions is highly disruptive

1) Inappropriate canvassing compromises the organic consensus decision-making process that is so core to Wikipedia, particularly its deletion processes. As described at WP:INAPPNOTE, inappropriate canvassing is characterized by four different categories of behaviors: mass-posting notifications to an excessive number of users (spamming), posting a notification in a non-neutral manner (campaigning), posting notifications to users based on their known opinions (votestacking), and posting notifications off-wiki (stealth canvassing).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Per WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia is not a place to carry out ideological battles. The point of Wikipedia is not to win ideological battles. In the context of this case, the most common ideological battle on display is the conflict of staunch inclusionists vs. staunch deletionists. When participating in deletion discussions, editors must put away their ideological beliefs about what is the "right" proportion of articles to keep vs. delete, and simply evaluate each article neutrally based on established WP policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The General Notability Guideline is the most fundamental test for article inclusion

3) The General Notability Guideline (GNG) has long been accepted as the most fundamental test of whether or not a topic deserves a standalone article. All articles must satisfy the GNG (notwithstanding the extremely rare application of IAR) in this context). If a topic does not meet the GNG but still has some verifiable facts, those facts can be included within another existing article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hardly. Keeping biographies by way of the older and more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (academics) rather than the General Notability Guideline is commonplace, for example. To the extent that "notability" is defined anywhere, it is in the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia:Notability, which precede the General Notability Guideline. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Different subject-specific guidelines have different relationships with the general guideline, which again, is a guideline and thus should not be regarded as the "most fundamental" anything. Over the years, people have filled I don't know how many Talk pages with arguments about the relative positions of these acronyms on an imaginary org chart (a tiny sample); suffice to say that ArbCom is not the entity nor this case the venue to resolve all that. (I, for one, don't have the foggiest idea why anyone would expect that an encyclopedia which aims to cover every documentable field of human activity could ever hope to express its inclusion standards in a few bullet points.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point about SNGs being an occasional exception as well. Perhaps I could clarify that in the finding of fact with a few extra words, but I see SNGs like WP:PROF as simply a restatement of GNG with a lot more specific language that's relevant to the subject area. WP:PROF doesn't remove GNG's requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources, it only clarifies and gives examples of what kind of coverage is deemed acceptable specifically for academics. The overall point is: if a topic doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, then how can you ever expect to write a sourced article about it? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"SNGs" aren't "occasional" exceptions; they're the bread and butter of whole genres of deletion debates. And historically, the adjective "general" was introduced to summarize criteria that explicitly called upon subject-specific notability guidelines for their justification. In other words, the vaunted GNG is just an attempt to express commonalities among what the much-derided SNGs had already troweled on top of the site's basic policy groundwork. The question if a topic doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, then how can you ever expect to write a sourced article about it? mixes up the ill-defined notion of "notability" with the basic requirements of policy. We can't write about a topic without "significant coverage in reliable sources" whether or not we give that topic a stand-alone article.

I really don't like sounding confrontational about this, but I can't manage to see it any other way: The proposed principle ignores the plain and long-established phrasing of the introduction of Wikipedia:Notability, and the text of the "Subject-specific notability guidelines" section that was established by a lengthy, recent RfC.

I'd try getting at a statement of principle without relying on wiki-insider jargon (or doing so to a lesser extent). For example, one might say, Wikipedia content should provide fair summaries of independent, reliable sources, and topics covered by Wikipedia are traditionally given stand-alone articles when the depth and extent of the coverage in those sources makes clear that the topic is best served by having its own page. XOR'easter (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with most of what you say, and my proposed finding of fact probably leaves out too many important details. However, I definitely disagree with this statement: "We can't write about a topic without 'significant coverage in reliable sources' whether or not we give that topic a stand-alone article." Of course we can. We can write about anything that is verifiable in reliable sources. But we can only devote an entire article to topics that have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. For instance, we can certainly write a standalone article about Donald Trump, but we wouldn't have an article about Donald Trump's appearances on the Oprah Winfrey show because there isn't enough significant coverage of those appearances to support a standalone article. However, we can certainly still devote a paragraph to it in Donald Trump in popular culture#Television.

When I started getting into editing Wikipedia, I naturally gravitated towards being more on the deletionist side of the spectrum (although since becoming an admin I've made efforts to be more neutral and see both sides must be in balance for WP to remain healthy). However, I still view some of the more extreme inclusionists as being obsessed with covering a topic in its own standalone article (as if that gives it more prestige or something), whereas many deletionists want to reserve standalone articles for topics that truly deserve one, while continuing to find the best places for content that otherwise can't support a standalone article. I think of it like a couple is packing up all of their belongings in preparation to move to a new house, and one of them wants to put each individual item in its own box, and the other wants to pack similar items together in the same box. Either way, the belongings will all make it to the new house, but one method will certainly get them there in a neater and more efficient manner.

But now I'm rambling. Either way, I think you've convinced me that this finding of fact is unlikely to find wide support as written, so I'm happy to withdraw it from consideration. Please feel free to submit an alternate wording of your own, or I'm happy to try again if you'd prefer. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I see your point with the Donald Trump's appearances on the Oprah Winfrey show example, but I suspect that it may be an outlier given the prominence of both named parties. There are plenty of cases where a celebrity appears on a show and some editor would argue against mentioning it — "UNDUE, lacks SIGCOV", they'd say. For example, this could easily happen if that celebrity's appearance on that show was part of a routine publicity tour. Other editors, with a more completionist bent, might argue that the COV is in fact SIG and so the mention is DUE. As an exercise, I once took the text of the General Notability Guideline and changed around a few words to make it advice about "coverage" rather than stand-alone articles. It reads like decent advice, I think, reflecting the fact that "Should we have an article on this?" and "Should this article we've got mention this?" are inevitably answered in somewhat overlapping ways.

Then we get into the examples where people want to split articles for size reasons, which is probably the best argument for why the Albert Einstein page has the offshoot List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Or, consider Fermat's Last Theorem, which has the more technical child article Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem as well as the less techncial Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction. There, the arguments for keeping items in different boxes involve both the size of each box and the audience expected to look into each box. It's a tricky problem!

For the purposes at hand, the most important thing is to identify the principle which the editors currently being called to the carpet have allegedly violated. I'll admit to not knowing how best to do that. Here's a variation on what I proposed earlier: Wikipedia content should provide fair summaries of verifiable sources, and a primary factor in deciding when a topic included in Wikipedia should have a stand-alone article is the depth and extent of the coverage in those sources. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That's incorrect about WP:NPROF: it specifically states that it is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. This is a really fundamental part of WP:NPROF, imo. The rationale is explicitly given at the top of the page: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Many editors try to pick the "easiest" of the GNG or SNG which results in hundreds of weekly arguments and essentially defeats the purpose of SNGs. I suggest a better solution is to remove the ambiguity of the first point in WP:N. Perhaps something like this: 1. It falls within a topic or subject area and meets the criteria outlined in a specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right or, in the absence of an appropriate SNG, it meets the criteria outlined in the general notability guideline (GNG) below. An SNG is free to add into its criteria that if the subject fails the SNG, it may also meet notability criteria if it passes GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's consider this proposal withdrawn, I've tried to reword it in a new proposal below (#4). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability is required for article inclusion

4) The fundamental test for whether or not a topic merits a standalone article is notability, as defined broadly at WP:N. In practice, in particular at deletion discussions, the General Notability Guideline (GNG) has long been accepted as the litmus test for notability, along with several subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) that extend the definition of notability to some narrower topic areas. All Wikipedia articles must satisfy the GNG or a relevant community-accepted SNG in order to qualify for a standalone article. If a topic does not meet notability requirements but still has some verifiable facts, those facts can be included within another existing article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The tension between the GNG and the SNGs does contribute to the atmosphere at AFD. Perhaps that would be a fruitful way to turn to refine this principle. --Izno (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• For me, a "problem" exists (which I've commented already on your previous proposal above) with that specific sentence at WP:N and the interpretation of "GNG *or* SNG". The common interpretation is as follows: If an article falls under a particular SNG but fails the notability requirements therein *then* if it passes GNG it meets our notability criteria. And this approach can be perfectly fine for some SNGs but it isn't a good fit for SNG's that are seen to take a "stricter" interpretation (e.g. NCORP). I suggest your proposal should read that All Wikipedia articles must either satisfy a relevant community-accepted SNG (SNG) or (in the absence of such) the GNG in order to qualify for a standalone article. Sounds clumsy even to me but hopefully you understand the point I'm trying to make. For example, if it is really the case that an article which is seen to fail NCORP but seen to pass GNG is accepted as notable, why bother with NCORP at all, just stick with the simpler GNG? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Would your concern be addressed if the proposal read Any Wikipedia article must satisfy the relevant notability guideline for the topic? To me, that would encompass those cases where the general guideline is the relevant one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and I have to say it appears to be a simple and elegant solution. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't agree that SNGs and the GNG interact in this way. NCORP literally says (at WP:ORGCRIT), "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This is plainly a restatement of GNG. It then goes on to get more specific on the quality of sources required, how to judge independence, examples of trivial coverage, etc., specifically for organizations and companies. I don't agree that NCORP is a "stricter" version of GNG, it's simply a more detailed interpretation of GNG with respect to organizations and companies. There's no way to fail the SNG while satisfying GNG simultaneously. If you fail the SNG for a company, then you've failed GNG as well, because NCORP is the guideline that tells us how to evaluate sources for companies. You appear to be concerned that an editor might try to show that a company meets the GNG, as long as you use the broader, looser sourcing requirements at GNG while ignoring the more detailed requirements at NCORP. That would be an invalid approach at best, and gaming the system at worst. NCORP and other SNGs are an extension of GNG, not an alternative to it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• You an I both know what you're saying is true. But if I had $1 for every time at an NCORP-related AfD that an editor says a topic "doesn't have to pass NCORP because WP:N says it is either GNG *or* SNG and this passes GNG", I'd (a) have a lot of dollars and (b) wouldn't believe this clarification is necessary. Editors who aren't regulars at NCORP-related AfDs also make this mistake. Even WP:SNG refers to NCORP as "stricter" rather than something like "more detailed". In my view, the current wording causes more problems that it is worth and editors at AfD use the current wording to actively *avoid* meeting the criteria of an appropriate SNG. I can post many many links to support what I've said. In my opinion this problem can be solved easily and elegantly. And it would save time and unnecessary aggro at AfDs without changing the intentions of WP:N and the roles played by our various notability guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is plainly a restatement of GNG.

@Scottywong, I'll point out there are users (user?) who assert that this is not true, and that a fundamental difference between GNG and NCORP is that for a single source to contribute to GNG it does not have to meet each of the GNG criteria (e.g. it doesn't have to be both "SIGCOV" and "independent"), but rather the sources as a whole have to "meet GNG". JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. An SNG such as WP:NCORP specifically notes that it incorporates WP:NOT, i.e. in WP:ORGCRIT, These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. WP:N outlines a two-part analysis, so a focus only on WP:GNG does not seem to be a complete summary of the WP:N guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Some editors look at the first point of WP:N 1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and interpret the *or* in the context of "either this *or* that". This leads to endless debates and disruption at AfD especially at NCORP-related AfDs where NCORP is seen as having a stricter interpretation of criteria such as "in-depth" and "independent". For example, the definition of "Independent Content" at WP:ORGIND is curiously different from what is said at the WP:INDEPENDENT essay - another aspect of the same point raised by Blue Square Thing, its ridiculous for the project to continue to have contradictory and unclear guidelines for so long. Any attempt to bring clarity becomes the usual in-fighting between the usual suspects and nothing changes. So we go on and eventually end up here where, I predict with some confidence, nothing of note will occur and we'll continue as-is until the next episode of AN/I or whatever. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  A focus on GNG without consideration of NOT may also be disruptive to the encyclopedia. For example, in NCORP discussions, a focus only on GNG without a more focused review of the independence of sources per the NCORP guideline may result in an article based on advertising and promotion being kept. Another example is related to the WP:EVENT guideline, which incorporates WP:NOTNEWS and offers specific guidance to help determine whether an event is an exception to the general exclusion of most newsworthy events. An argument to focus only on GNG may be disruptive to the encyclopedia if it means ignoring NOT-based SNGs that offer established guidance on how to identify articles based on advertising, promotion, and news that are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject routinely engages in inappropriate canvassing

1) While improving articles is the stated mission of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS), some of their most active members abuse the structure of the WikiProject to engage in inappropriate canvassing on a routine basis. In particular, listing an article for rescue on the project's rescue list is very likely to attract Keep votes by multiple ARS members at the associated AfD discussion. Therefore, listing an article at WP:RESCUELIST constitutes the notification of a partisan audience, also known as votestacking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please see a comment by the drafters and a personal comment from me about ARS and this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No one should be punished for offering to help nor for asking for help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen is one of the most frequent canvassers at the Article Rescue Squadron

2) Over the last year, 7&6=thirteen voted on approximately 53% of AfDs for articles that were tagged for rescue by an ARS member. The vast majority of those votes were Keep. This constitutes inappropriate canvassing because tagging an article for rescue constitutes a notification of a partisan audience (i.e. a set of editors that are very likely to vote Keep on on an AfD for an article that is tagged for rescue).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This feels like a lousy song-and-dance routine and I don't dance. Aritcles that go through the process at Article Rescue Squadron still have to meet notabiligy and other policy requirements for inclusion. IF an editor believes the position is "keep" at an AFD, so be it. If they want to ask for help from a project that helps editors, that's great.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Deprecate the Article Rescue Squadron and mark it as historical

1) It has been shown for many years that the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) cannot practically exist without succumbing to the temptation of inappropriate canvassing to ensure articles are kept at AfD. Additionally, there is no practical reason why improving articles at AfD needs to be a coordinated group activity. If ARS no longer existed, individual users could still peruse AfD and choose to improve articles that they're interested in. Therefore, to put an end to inappropriate canvassing, the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is hereby deprecated and marked as historical.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please see a comment by the drafters and a personal comment from me about ARS and this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias need articles. Wikipedia is not about WP:NOTHING. This proposal is in direct contrast to WP:PILLARS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron members are disallowed from voting at AfDs for rescue-tagged articles

2) When an article is added to the WP:RESCUELIST by a member of the ARS, all other members of the ARS are disallowed from voting at the associated AfD for that article. For the purposes of this remedy, an ARS member is defined as any user that has listed their username at WP:ARSMEMBERS or any user that has tagged an article for rescue at WP:RESCUELIST in the last 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please see a comment by the drafters and a personal comment from me about ARS and this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This remedy is an alternative if proposed remedy #1 is not adopted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is the best remedy of these. Although it should contain an exception for articles someone was a major contributor of the article before the addition to the rescuelist. In these cases the person is not only likely to see it themselves but also might have significant info needed in the discussion. Lurking shadow (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is effectively placing a topic ban on the ~300 members of WP:ARS (and any future members), only a fraction of whom have participated in this case, and only one of whom is listed as a party. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

They'd be free to remove their name from the ARS member list if they didn't participate there much anymore and didn't want to be bothered by the restriction. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, no. Violates WP:5P4 "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" -- taking a way the voice and input in AFD from people just because the work to create articles is unfair and one-sided. We seek the best idea and don't care where it comes from.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from tagging articles for rescue and voting at rescue-tagged AfDs

3) 7&6=thirteen is by far one of the most common abusers of the WP:RESCUELIST for inappropriate canvassing purposes. Therefore, 7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic-banned from adding articles to the WP:RESCUELIST, as well as topic-banned from voting on AfDs for any articles that have been added to the WP:RESCUELIST. This remedy can be appealed after 12 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This remedy is an alternative if proposed remedy #1 is not adopted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is too narrow. Read the evidence I presented; the core issue, at least when it comes to 7&6=thirteen, isn't canvassing or ARS but persistent, long-term battleground conduct when it comes to deletion, coupled with incivility and a frequent presumption of bad faith for those identified as being on the "other side." Do you picture 7&6=thirteen behaving better in deletion-relation discussions where ARS isn't involved? The solution isn't to fixate on ARS, the solution is a broad topic-ban from deletion. That also has the advantage of being a standard sort of remedy and not something offbeat. --Aquillion (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, asking for help is not a crime. The editor is acused of being "by far one of the most common abusers" but I don't buy that. Most common user? Maybe so. Abuser? I see no proof or conclusion of such an accusation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of "using" the ARS rescue system really is. If it's to request keep votes at AfD, then he's one of the most common users. If it's to request article improvements, then he's one of the most common abusers. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: What do you propose we do about the editors that use ARS as a way to canvass for votes at AfD? The reason I'm making these proposals is because this canvassing both demonstrates and fuels a battleground mentality at AfD. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked: I propose we do nothing to the editor who goes to ARS and asks for help. If the members at ARS or the editor that asks ARS for help are violating policy or the 5 Pillars, take action against them individually. But until someone can show a policy violation or legal issue or something of substance, why all the fuss? Let me ask you back: why do you think we should take action against editors that ask for help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To give an idea of how "asking for help" can be problematic, ARS listings have sometimes taken the form of "help me make sure this article survives AfD, here's why I think it should be kept" instead of "help me improve the article by expanding/rewriting/finding sources". This often led to members going straight to the AfD and voting Keep instead of editing the article, which is effectively canvassing and doesn't further the goal of improving articles. This was a problem a few years ago, but it seems to be less of an issue now that some of the worst offenders have been blocked. I'm in agreeance that it's best to address individual editor behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 04:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them individually, but perhaps the members of ARS who take a keep position at an xfd do so because they believe the article should be kept and improvement isn't necessary for just keeping the article. The purpose of ARS (at least, I think) is to "save" the article, not necessarily "improve" the article. Is there any reason not to AGF?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: This proposed remedy only affects 7&6=thirteen, not the entire ARS. It doesn't propose that we do anything to an editor who asks the ARS for help, it only restricts what 7&6=thirteen can do with respect to the ARS. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your question to me used a plural noun ("editors"), so I presumed you were asking a general question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable for editors to ask for AfD help from a "WikiProject Non-notable Standalone Deletion Squad"? The project would undoubtedly be improving the encyclopedia by rooting out articles on non-notable subjects, and could assist at AfDs by thoroughly investigating sources and explaining consensus guideline interpretation. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My first thought is "why not?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, second question: Do you think the community would ever permit this? JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that some wouldn't like it. And then some would start an ANI. And then we'd be here, but just from the other direction. After over a decade on Wikipedia, I can honestly state that I really have no idea what "the community" will think about anything.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by Barkeep49

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.

Community asked to come to a consensus about deletion policies and guidelines

1) The community is asked to hold a discussion (Request for Comment) about some deletion policies and guidelines to establish how these existing policies and guidelines are to be interpreted. Specifically, the community will be presented with the following mutually exclusive options:

• Policy 1

  Option A

  Option B

• Policy 2

  Option A

  Option B

  Option C

• Guideline 1

  Option A

  Option B

Users will be asked to choose which of the options they prefer and why. As the purpose of this discussion will be to establish how existing policies and guidelines are to be interpreted, and not to create or change any policy or guideline, the discussion may not be closed with a "no consensus" outcome nor may editors suggest other options. The Arbitration Committee will appoint three uninvolved experienced closers to close the discussion, and a moderator who will be an uninvolved (admin? clerk? arb?). The moderator will be responsible for supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant and may remove, strike, collapse, and otherwise moderate comments and may also ban editors from the discussion. Any appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am putting this out there for discussion/reaction more than anything, as there are some parts of this I don't love. To that end, I will also note that while I have discussed this some with L235, based on what he and Beeblebrox discussed on the talk page, I have not discussed this with the other drafters. I have also not said what topics would be part of this comment - to the extent that this gets any traction comments about what the topics and options should be, either here or by people suggesting their own remedies, are welcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Barkeep49. I'll keep an eye on discussion here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joe: you're right that the evidence to support this kind of remedy can be found far more here in the Workshop than on the evidence page itself. ArbCom has definitely used conduct during a case in FoFs and to support stronger remedies than would otherwise be passed, but this does feel like a different version of that and one whose appropriateness I'd want to think about more. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

My first thought is that it will be important to ensure you are asking the right question in each instance. See the ongoing Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations where there are four options and there is quite a bit of disagreement about what each of them means and how different they are in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering the areas of contention, I believe the following questions would be appropriate:

1. What constitutes SIGCOV?
2. Does the existence of sources need to be demonstrated at AfD?
3. If sources can be assumed to exist, how long can articles be kept based on that assumption alone?
4. If sources can be assumed to exist, does WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 present a separate and immediate requirement to demonstrate at least one exists?
5. Do SNG's with restrictive clauses (WP:NCORP, WP:NSPORT) prevent articles from being created even if they otherwise meet GNG, or do they only prevent the article from meeting the SNG?

The last four are relatively easy to answer, although the wording may need to be improved, specific policies referenced, examples provided etc. The first is considerably more difficult, and may need to be scrapped entirely, although it may be possible to word it to clarify what the upper and lower limits are, rather than clarify a hard definition. BilledMammal (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add one more (similar to #2):

1. Does WP:NRV require that specific sources be demonstrated to exist? –dlthewave ☎ 05:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• This would need solid findings of fact that explain why these policies and guidelines are in need of further interpretation, and at the moment I don't see how those could be found in the evidence presented. The actions of the four currently named parties certainly don't seem to have any wider policy ramifications. There has been a lot of general discussion of policies and guidelines in the evidence and workshop phases, but the committee should bear in mind that that comes from an unrepresentative, self-selected sample of people who have something to say about deletion policies and guidelines. And frankly, the majority of those people seem to me to either not understand the deletion policy (which doesn't mean it's unclear), have a pre-existing axe to grind about it, or just like to wikitheorise. As I cautioned in my preliminary statement, most editors and admins active in deletion wouldn't expect that fundamental aspects of the process would be up for debate on a subpage of an arbitration case about four editors they don't know, and many of those of us that are watching this page are asking the same question Levivich is on the workshop talk page. Absent strong evidence to the contrary, the default assumption should be that deletion policies and guidelines are self-explanatory (as they're intended to be), since they've handled hundreds of pages a day for many years without any major issues. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. The leap from possible behavioral issues with a few editors (including "editor ignores statement of consensus they were just pointed to") to an epochal discussion of deletion practice seems unwarranted. Indeed, the tone of the evidence presented seems to be that a few individuals are claimed to make worse a process that usually works okay. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand why such an RfC must be prohibited from resulting in a "no consensus" result. What if there is truly no consensus? Will this RfC simply be a numerical vote where we count heads? If we're going to decide something as important as how to interpret deletion policies and guidelines, wouldn't we want to ensure that there is a clear community consensus before we potentially make a significant change? If there is truly no consensus at the RfC, I would interpret that as a sign that the RfC asked the wrong questions, and the results of the RfC discussion should be used to create another RfC that attempts to ask the right questions or make the right proposals. Prohibiting a "no consensus" result seems dangerous and unnecessary to me. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

When we've proposed tightening notability or article creation guidelines, many editors have favored enforcing our existing rules (particularly WP:MEATBOT) instead of changing/rewriting/adding new ones. With that in mind, "The rules don't need to be clarified, we just need admins to enforce them" should be permissible outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 05:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The community failing to find consensus about whether the rules need to be clarified would be a different outcome than the community arriving at a consensus that the rules don't need to be clarified. It's the difference between "we can't agree on where to order delivery from, so dinner tonight is whatever we find in the fridge" and deliberately making the plan that Tuesdays are Dinner Is Whatever We Find In The Fridge Nights. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruling out a "no consensus" outcome before the questions have even been formulated strikes me as very strange, and I don't see how it follows from the stated rationale. Indeed, the point of any ordinary deletion discussion is to establish how existing policies and guidelines are to be interpreted, and not to create or change any policy or guideline, and we allow "no consensus" results there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Tryptofish's description of the GMO RfC on the talk page seems to provide the necessary structure and oversight while giving the community more say in what is proposed. –dlthewave ☎ 05:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Looking over JoelleJay's evidence, it's clear that editors had been ignoring the letter of NSPORTS and treating the sport-specific criteria as sufficient to establish notability for years despite being told otherwise repeatedly by closing admins. The WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC was supposed to clear that up by adding an explicit requirement that at least one SIGCOV source be cited in the article, yet we still continue to see editors asserting that "meets NCRIC" is sufficient. At this point I'm not at all confident that additional RfCs will be effective or well-received by the community; if they're ignoring that RfC, what makes us think that they would accept the outcome of another? We need to give admins the confidence to address editor behavior that violates our current P&Gs (which are already quite clear) and that is best accomplished by enacting discretionary sanctions, not more RfCs. –dlthewave ☎ 05:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat that many people, myself included, find the mass of conflicting guidelines confusing and, at times, contradictory. Which is more "important": WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC or WP:PROF, for example? And why do WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:SPORTSPERSON say quite different things? (and why are both necessary?) And why has the later been retargeted when it's on WP:BIO which would seem to have a rather higher level of precedence, to me, than an SNG? Honestly, it's a mess. See also below. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I can sympathize with the confusion, but the kind of RfC proposed above is just another expression of the same quasi-legalistic mentality that created that mass of guidelines in the first place. Any "answer" that it gives will be its own garbage pile of acronyms, because we as a community are not capable of a different response to the intrinsic complexity of the problem. Once you start from the premises that (a) you want to build an encyclopedia that includes people from all walks of human life throughout history, and (b) your criteria for who belongs in the encyclopedia must read like D&D rulebooks, the mess is baked in. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Much of the contradictions we see between guidelines come from editors who oppose a major RfC outcome on a guideline filibustering its implementation. Like we saw with the months it took to actually get the NSPORT subguidelines in compliance with consensus. SPORTSPERSON just hasn't been updated properly since the RfC; it still directs one to NSPORT for the actual full guideline so the latter should override whatever the former says. The only possible ambiguity between NPROF and other guidelines is how we interpret academic awards re: ANYBIO; however precedent seems to suggest the level of prestige of an award acceptable for NPROF is lower than that of ANYBIO (so comparisons can't be drawn between getting a well-known national award in academia and getting an equivalent in a non-scholarly discipline), and therefore that an award that wouldn't cut it for NPROF cannot count for ANYBIO.

And BIO is also just an SNG, it shouldn't have higher precedence. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

And that ^ perfectly illustrates the problem with the utter mess of intersecting notability "guidelines" we have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• The proposal seems like a reasonable idea. Something needs to be done. The format might avoid it spiralling in to a mass of different proposals that are utterly impossible to follow and might just keep more editors involved in the discussion - although I would really worry about a mass wall of text meaning that bludgeoning effectively occurs. Whatever were agreed, it'll take years to ensure that people know the outcome. A tiny minority of people who edit wikipedia knew that the sports notability guidelines had been changed. Many of them, clearly, assumed that the specific sports notability guidelines still existed and were useful. Clearly there is a view that some editors have that they're not and that they are superseded by one of the other guidelines - so this might help, but we need to then do something really practical to educate everyone about what it now expected. But any clarity - literally any - that can be added will help as it's an utter mess just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think an RFC may be appropriate, but I'm not sure about this RFC. I think the first question we should ask is why some SNGs (WP:NSPORTS comes to mind) are essentially worthless at this point while others (like WP:NPROF) can completely bypass the GNG. I would also hope that this RFC doesn't mean the parties to this case would be let off the hook for the behavior that got us here. -- Vaulter 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behavioral standards

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Feuds and quarrels

Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm lukewarm on this one. The fact is that any criticism of Lugnuts or repeated AfD nomination of articles they've created is likely to result in a quarrel, as we saw at the most recent ANI thread where it seems that JPL was simply cleaning up articles they thought were non-notable and Lugnuts responded with attacks, rudeness and unfounded accusations that JPL was targeting articles they had created. I also note that the evidence presented by Lugnuts consists almost entirely of accusations against non-parties who have criticized him; are we all expected to step back in order to avoid quarreling while allowing Lugnuts to obstruct deletion of non-notable mass-created articles? Sure, we should do what we can to address conflict, but simply asking both sides to step back without assessing the merits of the underlying dispute can inadvertently enable POV pushing from editors who are resistant to change. –dlthewave ☎ 16:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeated behaviour

Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Net negatives and containment of damage

A few editors, while intending to contribute positively to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, have a net negative effect, doing more harm than good, typically because of combativeness. In such cases, it may be necessary to consider whether the damage done by these editors can be contained by topic-bans or similar restrictions, or whether it is necessary to ban them from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Deletion of Articles

Articles and other pages can be deleted from the English Wikipedia in accordance with Deletion Policy by procedures that include speedy deletion, Proposed Deletion, and Articles for Deletion discussions. The last is a rough consensus process based primarily on compliance with verifiability, neutral point of view, and notability.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion (Importance)

Decisions as to the retention or deletion of articles are among the most important decisions made in administration of the encyclopedia. On the one hand, some materials, such as advertising, violations of the policy on biographies of living persons, and hoaxes must be deleted, and should be deleted as soon as possible. On the other hand, encyclopedic information should be retained, improved, and expanded, and deletion is inappropriate. Most material that is considered for deletion is somewhere in between being clearly not encyclopedic and being clearly encyclopedic. The decisions on what should and should not be deleted are difficult and important.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

The focus of this case is conduct by editors, especially the named parties, in deletion debates and in disputes related to deletion of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion (Viewpoints)

Reasonable editors can and do reasonably disagree as to when articles should and should not be deleted. Some editors have strong opinions that articles should seldom be deleted, known as Inclusionism, or that articles should often be deleted, known as Deletionism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion Discussions (Contentiousness)

Deletion discussions can be and often are contentious, because editors have strong feelings about deletion, reflecting differing (and sometimes complementary) philosophies about the building of an encyclopedia. Discussions at WP:ANI and other community forums about the conduct of editors in deletion discussions can be contentious. Some of the longest and most contentious threads at WP:ANI have involved conduct of editors in deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruption of Deletion Discussions

Deletion discussions are sometimes disrupted by personal attacks and other forms of incivility. Such conduct is harmful and disruptive to the collaborative effort of developing the encyclopedia. Sometimes sockpuppets, either new accounts or IP addresses, disrupt deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground Editing

Some editors approach deletion discussions and disputes involving conduct during deletion discussions with a battleground attitude. Such attitudes are inconsistent with collaborative editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inability of Community to Solve

The long history of conduct disputes involving conduct during deletion discussions shows that the community has been unable to resolve the divisive nature of these disputes using existing procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Remedies

Administrators Reminded and Encouraged

Administrators are reminded that they, as administrators, may and should take action against personal attacks and other incivility in deletion discussions, as in other Wikipedia activities. Such actions may include partial blocks from deletion discussions when necessary. When disruption involves sockpuppetry, administrators may semi-protect the deletion discussion. Administrators are encouraged to act decisively to minimize the disruption of deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary Sanctions

ArbCom discretionary sanctions are authorized for dealing with battleground conduct or other inappropriate conduct during deletion discussions. After an editor has been reminded of the existence of discretionary sanctions, uninvolved administrators may impose restrictions on offending editors including limiting participation in deletion processes and topic-bans from deletion processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this and the above remedy make sense cohesively. You propose to remind administrators above that civility (among other behaviors prescribed by policy) is expected and should be enforced only to turn around and suggest that discretionary sanctions should be authorized. I don't think you need discretionary sanctions if that is so. --Izno (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm optimistic that DS would help address the personal attacks and non-policy-based arguments we've seen at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I'm hoping my evidence will demonstrate at least some widespread pattern of repeated poor behavior being ignored at AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Lurking Shadow

Proposed principles

Biting new editors via sanctions

1) Giving newbie editors awareness notices when their article just got deleted or proposed for deletion will likely bite these newbies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this needs to be said.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Proposals by User:FOARP

Proposed principles

Mass creation of articles in contravention of WP:MASSCREATE and/or WP:MEATBOT is highly disruptive

1) Mass-creation of articles in contravention of WP:MASSCREATE and/or WP:MEATBOT is highly disruptive behaviour that the community is entitled to protect itself against, regardless of when the mass-creation occurred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Lugnuts has mass-created articles and disrupted clean up of them

1) Lugnuts has mass-created articles in contravention of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT, and then engaged in disruptive editing, including incivility and canvassing, against editors attempting clean-up. Ad-hoc community sanctions have only partially dealt with this by temporarily preventing further mass-creation whilst leaving the mass-created articles in place, administrator warning are ignored in the apparent belief that they won't be enforced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All of those claims are of course, false. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Some statements by Lugnuts taken from the diffs/ANIs already presented in evidence, my comments in brackets and emphasis added -

• "I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's snowing here, and I can see the issue people have with short stubs produced en masse. I'm happy to stop all stubs like this, including but not limited to BLPs, sportspeople, films, and other similar creations." - from the December 2021 ANI.
• "Thanks GS. Agreed, and I've stopped creating these [i.e., the kind of mass-produced stubs objected to] now" - from the March-April 2021 ANI.
• "Yes. Apologies, I've not been online for most of the day. While I did retract the comment at AfD [i.e., the uncivil comment for which they were blocked], I completly forgot about it here. It's now removed. Is that OK for an unblock on the proviso that if there are any further issues from now on it goes to an indef, no questions asked?" - from Lugnuts' March 2022 unblocking.
• "@Spartaz: - it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that the first thing I'll do when the block ends is to stike that AfD comment and apology [apparently this should read "apologise"] in that discussion too." (and then in answer to a further warning from Spartaz) "Will do and understood." - from the April 2022 unblocking (submitted in Lugnuts' evidence).

I urge the Arbs to read the above statements by Lugnuts where they appear to acknowledge that their mass-creation of articles was disruptive and that their behaviour at AFDs related to their articles was uncivil, only to make the flat denial of this that they have made today. Paired with Lugnuts evidence submitted being, rather than anything that might absolve or explain their behaviour, simply accusations against some (far from all) of the people who have raised issues with their behaviour around deletion discussions, the picture of an editor who simply does not see any reason to change their behaviour and interprets all suggestions that they do as some kind of plot against them is clear. This is doubly so when in his evidence he describes the April 2022 block from Spartaz which at the time he said he accepted, understood, and apologised for, as a "bad block" (diff here). It really is time to resolve this issue, rather than punting on it yet again. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it blows my mind how many times Lugnuts has been given a "final warning" or avoided a block with "I realize that I was disruptive, I promise I'll stop, you can indef me if I do it again". On a similar note, during the course of a March 2021 ANI thread where his recent mass creation of unreliably sourced articles was being discussed, Lugnuts began to replace an unreliable source (Koyumuz) in some of the Turkish village stubs and promised to clean up the entire batch of 4000+ articles according to their count:

• "Thanks - I've started work on changing the reference, so down from 4,452 (quoted above) to just 4,396 to go. Some of them using Koyumuz won't be articles I started, as the ref had been used way before I started to use it."
• "It was a geninue response to the claim made by that editor. I could say X source isn't reliable for a source they've provided, and get slapped with "you're not WP:AGF!" in reply. The alternative, which I'm now working on, is to replace cites to Koyumuz. I've removed about 150 today alone. I'll work on the rest and have that down to zero."
• "For each new article, I also link it to its page on Wikidata, and create redirect/dab pages for the first half of the placename as needed. And I've also been replacing links from the koyumuz site, doing about 200 in the past 24hrs. Obviously I wont be replacing that source if someone else has added it. Thanks."
• "I've assumed a lot of good faith from the OP's concerns, despite the two of us not seeing eye to eye. The original issue being about the reliabilty of the koyumuz source. I updated a whole batch of them earlier today, and I've said I'll work through the rest."
• "Hi. The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source. That has been recognised by myself, and I'm working through replacing said source. I think the original stats were 4,000+ articles with that source, the number is now just over 3,000. IE I've updated 1,000+ articles since the issue was flagged up. That's it. ONE mistake with a source, which is now being fixed. Everything I create is to the letter/spirit of the relevant notability guidelines/policy."

I'm not aware of Lugnuts continuing this effort after the ANI thread was closed, and a search shows that 2300+ articles still cite Koyumuz. I'm sure that Lugnuts will point out that not all of these are his creations, but a great many are and he did commit to cleaning up all of them. With the knowledge that the community will not hold him to his promises, this user has figured out how to game our disciplinary processes by saying whatever it takes to lift a block/ban while having no intention to follow through. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

2355 out of 2371 distinct articles with external links to koyumuz.net were created by Lugnuts. —Cryptic 16:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts is not the only one

2) Lugnuts is not the only editor to have engaged in mass-creation followed by attempts at disrupting clean-up through uncivil and otherwise disruptive editing. Mass-created articles are an area of contention amongst editors that prevents co-operative editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I guess it's OK if you're mass-creating one-line stubs on insects at the rate of 3 to 5 per minute 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. How do pages like Leuconitocris simpsoni pass WP:SIGCOV?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I suggest that Lugnuts be allowed to enter the apparent contravention of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT in 2017 by Wilhelmina Will, an editor who has made exactly 34 edits this year and is fair to describe as relatively inactive, in their evidence, so that they can fully explain the relevance of this evidence.
I agree that this does show that they were not the only one who mass-created articles. That these articles are still with us, dubiously-sourced and unimproved, does also show the long-term impact of mass-creation in contravention of WP:MEATBOT/WP:MASSCREATE. I was actually going to enter the creations of the other top-ten article creators as evidence (particularly as by my count all of them are now retired/semi-retired/indef-blocked/not very active except Lugnuts and Ser Amantio di Nicolao) but since only Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46 have tried to disrupt clean-up of their articles, and Carlossuarez46 has already been dealt with and retired, it seemed peripheral to the main issue. FOARP (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Standard discretionary sanctions to be enabled for editing/discussion of mass-created articles

1) All discussion and editing of mass-created articles as defined by (and in contravention of) WP:MASSCREATE and/or WP:MEATBOT from now on should be subject to the standard discretionary sanctions. Lugnuts to be warned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The idea here is that this really should be the last time we have to convene to discuss Lugnuts behaviour. DS will also enable admins to act more quickly to prevent disruptive editing, either disruption aimed at deletion or disruptive creation/attempts at keeping. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

JohnPackLambert and 7&6=thirteen

Despite these editors being right on each side of this pesky ideological divide, I believe they're both at least trying to be productive. However, they both can't help themselves when it comes to deletion related issues. I believe the evidence provided by Ritchie333 (about JPL) and by Beccaynr (about 7&6) are both the most relevant here, and don't come from anyone obviously with an axe to grind (there may be others, but I'm picking these two as the most straightforward as to why ArbCom need to take action). I don't have a particular view on the other two editors. Comment by BlackKite. Moved from evidence page by Barkeep49 17:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On the statistical evidence

There is one significant deficiency in the keep vs. delete statistics which needs to be kept in mind: participation in discussions is utterly voluntary, except for the nominator. Therefore one potential meaning of the voting ratio is that a user may prefer to vote in cases where they would vote "keep" or "delete" rather than that, for any random discussion, they would vote one way or the other. Also, most of us (I imagine) tend to reserve our participation to certain classes of subject. For example, I rarely vote in biography or band or album/song discussions. I haven't tried to run the numbers, but I have to think that the success ratio for nominations in different subject areas varies considerably.

Rather than focusing on who is a deletionist or inclusionist, I think it is more worthwhile to look at the accuracy. From the table I compiled it's clear that there is quite a bit of variance in this, and that some editors have fairly poor accuracy, while at least one editor whom I did not list has a 95% accuracy. I note that Mr. Lambert is reasonably accurate on voting but has a poorer record on nominations, as an example. I am hard pressed to believe that someone who mostly votes delete, accurately, is doing anything wrong in that respect. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have been thinking recently a fair amount myself about the topics Aquillion Diff/1094738138 and Paulmcdonald Special:Diff/1094789297 discuss below (even before this case). When someone is in the minority of community consensus are there (or should there be) right places and wrong places to advocate for your point of view? So, for instance, in this case if you know (or should know per WP:COMPETENCE) that you have a minority view about the notability of topic Foo, is it ok to vote that way at AfD anyway? If the answer to that is yes, what expectations do we have for closers about weighting such viewpoints? If the answer is no, just what kind of discussions are appropriate to join in an attempt to convince others so that consensus changes? These are not rhetorical questions for me, but ones I've been struggling with and ones that may have some bearing on how this case is decided. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

When I think about this discussion, I remember an interaction with multiple then-administrators on a particular AFD who voiced opinions contrary to (established) policy and guideline. Does the bar in the Barkeep questions change depending on the experience of the editor making the comment? The user rights? --Izno (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is nothing inherently wrong with voting keep or delete in nearly every AfD that you participate in. However, analyzing an individual's voting patterns helps to provide additional insight into the potential motivations and agendas that some voters bring to AfD. This voting analysis can be combined with a behavioral analysis of an editor at AfD to draw additional conclusions. In many cases, an editor might simply be searching out a certain type of AfD, and that could explain their innocent tendency to vote one way more than the other. However, if you see that someone tends to vote one way nearly all the time, and you simultaneously note that this person also demonstrates a pattern of behavioral problems (like getting overly emotional/argumentative at AfD, or nominating tons of article that are unlikely to be deleted, or trying to cite dubious sources in attempt to artificially inflate the notability of a subject, or canvassing other editors who are likely to vote the same way as them), then you can start to piece together the clues and understand that this editor has a problematic battleground mentality. Looking at the keep vs. delete ratio is not itself an indicator of a problem, but it's one of many signs that can be viewed simultaneously to put together the bigger picture.

Apart from that, I absolutely agree that the accuracy statistic is another critical stat that needs to be included (which is why I originally built that stat into the afdstats tool in the first place). If I had more than 500 characters to use in the evidence phase, I would have devoted some to that. Thanks to Mangoe for including that in their evidence. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The comments and discussion about "accuracy" to me should not be considered. I disagree with the named parties (and others) from time to time or even quite often in AFD discussions. But I should hope that there would be no harm in just disagreeing--worst case scenario is the editor is "wrong" and I can't think of a single reason to take action against someone for that. Now--for civility, that could be something that violates the Five Pillars and that would be a different story. But just... making a mistake? Disagreeing with consensus? I just don't see it. I hope that there is more being considered than just "accuracy" here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a low "accuracy" statistic at AfD. There's obviously no policy that says you'll be blocked or topic banned if your accuracy falls too low. But this is just another indicator among many. If an editor has low accuracy, that means they're frequently going against the mainstream view of what articles are generally kept or deleted around here. That could be a sign that they fundamentally misunderstand notability and WP:NOT policies, or that they disagree with the policies and are attempting to battle against them one AfD at a time. It's just a data point, not necessarily a sign of a problem in all cases, and certainly not actionable on its own. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider that data (in combination with all of the other available evidence) if it's available. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your view that alignment with outcome is one data point to consider, in my view, it's more relevant for identifying cases to be investigated further. But since we're already here, I feel we should just look for battleground behaviour being exhibited in discussions. Undesirable behaviour can and does happen independently of alignment with outcome. As you noted, disagreement with others is not a problem in itself. How editors express their disagreement is what's key, no matter what viewpoint they are supporting. isaacl (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Conversely, if you have a very high accuracy stat, it could be a sign that you're just "piling on" to discussions that have already reached a consensus, not contributing anything of substance. – Joe (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A close look at civility and policy/guideline compliance tells us far more about an editor's conduct than statistics ever could. The evidence I presented regarding Lugnuts shows four AfDs [10][11][12][13] where articles with no SIGCOV sourcing whatsoever were kept based on spurious votes such as "meets NCRIC". These would show as "accurate" votes in the statistics despite running counter to what the guideline actually says. This also reflects either a lack of familiarity with the relevant guideline or an unwillingness to go against the numerical vote count on the part of closing admins, which is another issue that should be addressed here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This also reflects either a lack of familiarity with the relevant guideline or an unwillingness to go against the numerical vote count on the part of closing admins, which is another issue that should be addressed here. 1000x this. We get like 1-2 DRVs a week on sportsperson closes that apparently failed to consider !votes by weight rather than number and/or were completely unfamiliar with NSPORT. This is exactly why it's problematic we have zero consequences for editors who consistently push non-guideline-based rationales. JoelleJay (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I share the nervousness some editors above express about focusing on accuracy. Being in the minority (that is, holding views on the subjective aspects by which we make decisions, or holding good-faith interpretations of policy that are reasonable but uncommon) is not against policy, and we should not sanction someone for that alone. If someone is constantly in the minority in discussions, it might be a reason to look carefully at their arguments and how they conduct themselves in order to ensure that their positions are at least defensible, but as long as their arguments clearly pass WP:COMPETENCE, are made in good faith, and are based on at least some plausible interpretation of policy then I don't think it's appropriate to sanction someone for consistently holding a minority position, not even if they are a constant AFD participant who is in the minority in every single discussion they take part in. Constantly creating AFDs that go nowhere is mildly more concerning (because unlike just participating, they could be wasting the community's time), but even then, the underlying reason for sanctions needs to be something more basic like WP:COMPETENCE or an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT / WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLUDGEON refusal to admit that some specific interpretation of policy they hold isn't widely enough shared for their repeated discussions to go anywhere. That requires looking at the actual arguments they make; simply being wrong a lot isn't sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • One more thought and I'm done entering: remember that consensus can change. So if we sanction someone just for being "wrong" against consensus, and the consensus changes later so that they are now "right" -- do we "un-sanction them" ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Just remember that when we're talking about accuracy, only one or two editors may comment on a particular AFD -- this is the case in several of the ones I linked to on the evidence page -- so their votes may not reflect the consensus of the wider community. -- Vaulter 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'll also note there's an issue inherent w/re "accuracy" when multiple members of ARS all !vote the same way. That can affect outcome and make all of them look "accurate" for that AfD. So even "accuracy" stats need to be looked at with care. valereee (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• I review many more AFDs than I comment in. Sometimes, they're being kept, and I don't !vote keep because I agree with that outcome. Sometimes, they're trending towards deletion, and I think that's the right outcome, so I say nothing. I have a real problem with "AfD Accuracy" being used here or in RfA, because while it might accurately describe when editors have opined, it cannot ever encompass what has been seen but not commented upon. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accuracy matters. If an editor is popping up in multiple AfD's over a longish period of time, a low accuracy stat usually shows that the editor's voting pattern is based on a minority view of policy/guideline interpretations. If the editor is ignoring the consensus on how the policy/guideline is being interpreted, that is IDONTLIKETHAT and IDONTHEARTHAT. If a guideline needs clarification or changing, there are better places to bring about a change. AfDs should not be a constant revolving BATTLEGROUND over policy/guideline interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

To add, in some (exceptional and rare) circumstances, local consensus might be established among a limited group of editors but local consensus cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Aquillon describes a situation above where an editor may hold "good-faith interpretation of policy that are reasonable but uncommon" and further points out that this "is not against policy and we should not sanction someone for that alone". Over a long period of time though an editor must realise and accept that their interpretations/views go against community consensus. Continuing to make the same point/interpretation in multiple AfDs over a period of time becomes disruptive and is essentially a refusal to work with community consensus. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely THIS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to continue the discussion about where to express minority views that was started by Barkeep49. I posted an earlier version of this example on the talk page.

• This is a hypothetical example borrowing BilledMammal's platypus topic. An editor named Platypus Deleter (PD) interprets WP:What Wikipedia is not (policy, shortcut WP:NOT) to mean that all platypus articles are inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia and must be deleted. PD approaches closers of relevant AfDs, encouraging them when they delete, asking them to reconsider when they do not, and sometimes filing at WP:Deletion review.
• Is this acceptable? Note that convincing a closer to follow an interpretation and put their finger on the scale has higher impact than convincing a mere participant.
• How much does the correctness of PD's interpretation matter? Consider these cases:
  1. WP:NOT is as actually written – completely wrong
  2. WP:NOT excludes ducks – not credible
  3. WP:NOT excludes animals with duck bills – plausible based on "duck-billed platypus"
• What steps are necessary to educate and/or warn PD?

In the interest of transparency, I recently posted on a closer's talk page and later filed a DRV. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

On Lugnuts "misleading" other editors

If I were one of the participants in the AFDs referenced here, I'd be somewhat peeved with the insinuation that Lugnuts misled me. We have no reason to believe those editors didn't arrive at the same opinion on their own because, believe it or not, the push to deprecate (or whatever term you want to use) sports notability guidelines does not enjoy widespread community support. -- Vaulter 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The drafters have already decided that conflict about the RfC is out of scope. The question that is relevant for this case is whether there is evidence at AfD of local consensus overriding global consensus which the committee has addressed in previous cases (3 times according to the linked page). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vaulter does it mean that editors who cite a current sports notability guideline are at risk of sanction? No. Does it mean that editors who cite a previous sports notability guideline that no longer has community consensus are at risk of sanctions? Well that's trickier for me which I elaborate on more above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Barkeep49: Does that mean editors who cite a sports notability guideline in an AFD are at risk of sanctions? -- Vaulter 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The version of NCRIC that Lugnuts, and others (including in part myself), would have cited at those AfDs was established at this discussion started by RandomCanadian and which was contributed to by only two other editors - one of whom is now banned. Lugnuts wasn't one of them - and there wasn't really very much discussion about it. The proposal was then taken to NSPORTS and discussed briefly before being imposed - again without input from Lugnuts. To be honest, none of the people who would typically have input into major changes in terms of the cricket project had any input whatsoever - so this really isn't a case of a wikiproject gathering local consensus for anything at all - I'd argue that it's more a case of a "solution" imposed on a wikiproject. All that the editors who contributed to those AfDs were doing was taking what was given to them as an SNG - I don't think any of the editors involved in the drafting of NCRIC contributed to any of those AfD did they?

Compare the two discussions linked about to this one from 2021 if you'd like to see what I'd expect to have been the level of discussion.

Fwiw I'd also argue that Lugnuts' position at those AfD is rather more nuanced than is being suggested here. In none of the cases do they "vote" as Keep: passes NCRIC by itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: just for the absence of doubt, the version of NCRIC being cited at those AfD was the current one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's really not accurate either, though. It wasn't some tiny local consensus that decided to remove large parts of NCRIC, it was the gigantic NSPORT referendum that found consensus to deprecate all participation-based criteria and change "presumed notable" to "presumed SIGCOV". RC was just implementing this consensus in a way that allowed NCRIC to be listed on NSPORT in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, which part isn't accurate? NCRIC had to change. It did. But it did with very little discussion and the version that was put forward wasn't drafted by anyone really closely associated with the wikiproject. Was it? All that editors such as Lugnuts are doing now is using what they were given. That's fine, NCRIC is perfectly usable - but when editors using it in the way it's meant to be used are then characterised as "misleading", that's, well, a bit unfair really. Isn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I was disputing the implication there was little discussion overall leading up to the NCRIC changes. There wasn't much discussion on exactly how to make it comply with NSPORT, but the majority of the actual changes to the guideline should be attributed to the broader discussion rather than the one for the hasty temp solution. And anyway, the issue wasn't that Lugnuts et al was citing NCRIC, it was that the !votes presented NCRIC as if it still presumed notability rather predicted SIGCOV, and therefore superseded GNG (which you and he and everyone know it never did in the first place). JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I think an awful lot of people are really confused by what exactly is being looked for these days. I know I am. I honestly have no idea what is or isn't significant coverage anymore, how much is needed, whether anyone who hasn't had success at international level can ever be considered to be notable or not. The ways things have been written make this worse, not better (fwiw, I'd do away with the entirety of NSPORTS and revert to just the GNG - at least that would avoid contradiction). Perhaps this case can actually determine what it all means now. But, y'know, I think that's out of scope. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue here is Lugnuts misleading editors; I believe the issue is editors rejecting broader consensus. Looking at the 39 AfD's on cricket biographies that were opened since the NSPORTS RfC closure we see that this has happened in eleven of them, resulting in five articles being kept on that basis (Sarah Forbes, Subroto Das, Shabana Kausar, Mamata Kanojia, and Bradman Ediriweera).

I also believe that this rejection is disruptive; editors have a responsibility to respect consensus, and just as ignoring consensus in articles is disruptive, so is ignoring consensus in discussions. This aligns with principles from past ARBCOM cases; ten years ago, ARBCOM found that editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus and last year it found that individual editors have a responsibility to respect the outcome of dispute resolution.

This doesn't prevent editors from challenging consensus, as consensus can change, but it must be challenged at a location where policy permits it to be changed, which means at the same level it was formed or higher as to do so elsewhere wastes editors time and can produce a result that the broader community would reject. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

My concern was not whether the article in question met NCRIC, but that meeting NCRIC only tells us that "coverage is likely to exist" - It does not override WP:SPORTBASIC ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject") or the very first line of NSPORTS, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Editors should not be voting Keep based solely on meeting NCRIC or its criteria, and they should not be voting Keep based on potential for SIGCOV when none has actually been shown to exist. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"I don't believe the issue here is Lugnuts misleading editors" but you started a section titled "Lugnuts has misled other editors" - so which is it? And why is the personal attack tolerated? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I said the line you quoted, not dlthewave, although I can see how you got confused; the separation between their comment and mine is not clear. BilledMammal (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of local/global levels of consensus, I can recall several RfCs and ANI threads where there was strong community consensus to mass-delete an editor's thousands of sports- or geo-stub creations, but the actual deletion process proved difficult because the editors most active in those topics favored inclusion and would revert redirects or outvote others at AfD. And yet, when stricter standards for article creation and notability are proposed, they often don't pass because the community believes that our current notability policies are sufficient and should simply be better enforced. I think the moral here is that many editors express their opinions in community-level discussions instead of directly at AfD, and they have the expectation that consensus will be followed/enforced by those who are active in those areas. –dlthewave ☎ 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, community-level discussions can be hard for people to follow. WP:NSPORTS2022 contained 13 different proposals plus additional discussion sections. At nearly 120,000 words, it's roughly the size of Pride and Prejudice or Homer's Odyssey. -- Vaulter 16:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I certainly gave up trying to follow that RfC. Of course, that then seemed to lead to all sorts of debate about when and how to implement them as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that the RfC was difficult for some folks to follow while it was in progress, but its consensus is summed up in the closing statement and for AfD purposes you can simply refer to the current version of NSPORTS. –dlthewave ☎ 19:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I meant that such a voluminous discussion can be difficult to participate in while it is ongoing, not to read after the fact. -- Vaulter 19:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That was my point as well - I, and I think a fairly large number of other editors, gave up trying to contribute to it as it sprawled massively and became difficult to follow. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• At least when it comes to Lugnuts, I feel like the key questions are... First, did Lugnuts know about the giant sports notability RFC? Second, if they knew, do their comments represent a reasonable interpretation of it (even if others might disagree with that interpretation), or was they straight-up ignoring it, or even misrepresenting it, and encouraging others to do the same? Evidence on these points might be relevant (as well as perhaps comments from Lugnuts themselves regarding how they see / saw the situation; an "oops I was wrong, I misread / misunderstood the RFC and will avoid doing so in the future" might be sufficient, especially if nobody has poked them about this specific issue previously. And if someone has, that should be in evidence.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Over the years, comments at AfD of "keep, meets NXXX" (or, indeed, "delete, fails XXX") have been commonplace. Given that and the recent nature of changes to sports notability guidelines and the understanding that people at XfD tend to use short-form arguments that other people are likely to understand, I'm not sure that anyone using those arguments is all that far from the mark anyway, even now. Fwiw, in the AfD threads linked originally, I'm not sure that Lugnuts ever uses *just* that argument as such, and in one of them I don't think they do at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated at the evidence page, I believe that Lugnuts had also mis-represented other editors' words, for instance at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Walter Engelmann with BilledMammal. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerning WP:BEFORE

This "requirement", as @Aquillion: says, has been a sore point for those of us trying to clean up the messes made by mass stub creation efforts. The creators of these articles didn't have to do the work, but we have to do it for them, and we get called out when our work isn't good enough by someone's personal standard. And while there are some people who respond not just be citing sources we missed, but by putting them in the article as well, there are plenty who do not.

I know it is a proposal that would never pass and would subject me to a great deal of invective and tl;dr which I would be expected to read and respond to, but it seems to me that almost all the drama around the remaining geostubs could be disposed of if we would just delete the lot and expect them, if created, to be fleshed out to the point where their notability was obvious. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is a more succinct way to put this: if there is an article writing version of WP:BEFORE, it is largely if not overwhelmingly disregarded. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question is WP:BEFORE a "requirement" or "policy" ? I agree it's a good thing to do--but the page states "This page explains what you should consider before nominating" in the second paragraph. Note that it says "should" and not "must" -- I don't believe that we should take any action against editors for failing to do something that isn't required.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

BEFORE isn't even indirectly mentioned in any policy articles, including WP:DELETE or WP:PROD. JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This remark of yours was spot on, it's worth showing here. Avilich (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not correct. WP:AFD mentions WP:BEFORE; WP:DELAFD directs editors to "Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page." Still, having said that, I would favor hightening the profile of BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why editors are free to consciously ignore "should" and "strong encouraged" when done at scale and with habit over time. A rule means you should not do it ever, even once. A strong suggestion means if you do it sometimes no one's going to stop you, sometimes things are imperfect the system allows for that; but if you do it all the time, intentionally ignoring the suggestion, at large scale repeatedly over time, that's a problem. -- GreenC

I would say that is because "should" is not the same thing as "must" -- now, if that needs to be changed from "should" to "must" then there is a mechanism to change it. But as it sits right now, it's not "must" -- make sense?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• To me, a "should" or "encouraged" makes something contextual; it means that you can skip it if you feel there's a specific reason to do so, and can skip it repeatedly if that reason applies in many cases. The example here would be eg. not doing it for articles that were mass-created, since doing so would impose a burden that would make it hard to challenge mass-created articles and would turn them into a WP:FAIT; as I said above, I don't feel it's reasonable to impose a minute-long search on the nomination for each of tens of thousands of articles cranked out automatically by a script. Some degree of parity is necessary in conflict-resolution in order to get everyone to the table. --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that this is assuming bad faith of the article creation, when I've not seen any evidence that this was the case. Spending less than a single minute checking to see whether the subject of an article is notable before nominating it for deletion is far below the standard that should be reasonably expected of an editor acting in good faith to improve the encyclopaedia, especially when done at scale. Just because these articles should not have been created in this manner does not mean that it is acceptable to delete them without regard to anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't require bad faith. The simple fact is that if people reviewing new articles are required to spend a minute doing WP:BEFORE before nominating, while people creating new articles are not required to do the same thing, this results in a situation where article creators can crank out tens of thousands of automated stubs - far beyond our ability to perform individual source-searches on - and then demand that minute of review for each of them. That is an unworkable WP:FAIT situation, whether people intended it or not. As you say, we need to make sure that that search is ultimately done, eventually, for every article, by someone. And per WP:BURDEN, the ultimate requirement to do that one-minute search rests on the people who created or want to retain an article, not on whoever happens to nominate it - if you think that that search is not a big deal then it should be no issue moving the requirement to the correct place. Purely from a practicality standpoint, the people who want to create or retain the articles are the ones most incentivized to do it, the ones most likely to know where to search, and the ones who essentially put that (necessary) work in the queue in the first place by creating the article or objecting to an uncontentious deletion; obviously, they are the ones who should have to do it. Whereas foisting that requirement off on nominators - beyond being unequivocally contrary to WP:BURDEN - results in a chilling effect that discourages objections and results in huge numbers of unsourced stubs being created that nobody has any incentive to (or even the time to) search for sources for. If you create ten-thousand articles, you must be willing to commit to doing ten-thousand one-minute source searches; if you refuse to do so, and nobody else steps up, then they should all be deleted as soon as anyone objects. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion The simple fact is that if people reviewing new articles are required to spend a minute doing WP:BEFORE before nominating, while people creating new articles are not required to do the same thing, this results in a situation where article creators can crank out tens of thousands of automated stubs - far beyond our ability to perform individual source-searches on - and then demand that minute of review for each of them. This statement is not incorrect - but only because of that "if ... while". Article creators are expected to do this. Article creators who frequently disregard it have been blocked from creating in mainspace and sent to AfC instead. If you want to argue that all of Lugnuts's stubs should be deleted, or some subset of them should be, or that there are particular editors who should be blocked from mainspace article creation for making non-notable stubs at high volume, do go ahead and make that argument for people to agree or disagree with. I sympathize with your feelings here and am indeed sometimes frustrated by people who cite WP:BEFORE for wacky reasons (especially when they clearly do not appear to have done a WP:BEFORE before citing it!), but ArbCom ruling in general something like "creators of new articles are expected to check if subjects are notable before making an article about them" won't fix these problems, since as far as I can tell that is already the case. -- asilvering (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, my only purpose with these arguments is that I don't think ArbCom should impose sanctions on parties that are premised on WP:BEFORE. I don't think ArbCom can or should make more sweeping changes. And while I definitely think article creators should search for sources, my preference would lean more towards WP:V's requirement only when they are challenged or likely to be challenged; my proposal elsewhere was that if an article that lacks any valid sources is prodded or redirected, anyone who deprods it or reverts the redirect must add at least one legitimate source or their edit is invalid and can be reverted without regard for WP:3RR / WP:PROD. I'd also make it easier to do mass-deletion RFCs for mass-created pages. But I admit that simply requiring a source would probably be simpler. Either way that is a bit out of the scope of this ArbCom request, though. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

if an article that lacks any valid sources is prodded or redirected, anyone who deprods it or reverts the redirect must add at least one legitimate source... That proposal is unworkable as written given that editors may reasonably disagree about what constitutes a "valid" or "legitimate" source. Whether a source is present is objective, and whether it verifies a given claim is partially objective (it requires agreement about what claim(s) it is attached to and whether the source is reliable in the relevant context). However, whether coverage is "significant" is an inherently subjective standard - especially when the claim is that coverage in multiple sources collectively constitutes the significant coverage rather than one source being significant on its own. This is exacerbated when the source(s) are not accessible by everyone (offline sources, paywalls, not in English, etc). Requirements for "a source" do not address the disagreements over notability that are at the heart of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about that while writing it (that obviously isn't the final proposal; I didn't want to derail the ArbCom discussions further with something tangential.) A good-faith assertion that the source satisfies the relevant notability guideline is enough - the idea is that this is intended only as a filter for trivial cases; good-faith disputes still have to go to AFD. If someone disagrees with you then they can express that disagreement by taking the article to AFD where it's handled as it is now. If someone continuously presents sources that unambiguously fall below the standard where it can be considered a good-faith disagreement - that is, ones that are not even debatable; ones where any editor can easily glance at them and immediately see that they fail the guidelines, are obviously not WP:RSes, etc. - and continuously presents sources with a specific problem after being informed about the problem, then that could lead to sanctions (just like any other situation where someone repeatedly and unambiguously misuses sources to the point where it can no longer be considered a good-faith disagreement), but I don't think it would come up often, since it takes a lot to show that someone is persistently and intentionally misusing sources. Just being wrong or holding a minority view wouldn't be enough, you'd have to be very clearly, obviously, and repeatedly ignoring WP:RS or the notability guidelines after being informed about the problem. (Also, I don't think the latter part of this would need to be spelled out - this could be summarized in one sentence saying that you just need to present a source that you believe, in good faith, satisfies the relevant notability guideline. The rest is our standard dispute-resolution and conduct-resolution stuff.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is a recommendation, it is not mandatory nor a policy. In line with WP:AGF, it should be assumed that it has been performed in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. If there is a suggestion that it should be made a stricter or mandatory requirement, those seeking to change this should attempt to gather a consensus to that effect on an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many comments on this page that explicitly state that performing even the tiniest BEFORE is unreasonable, when combined with the volume of nominations this is clear evidence that at least some editors are not performing it. When something is strongly encouraged you should have a good reason for not doing that thing, it preventing you from nominating articles for deletion as fast as you want to is not a good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you might disagree, but clearly there's plenty of people who think that it is unreasonable to apply BEFORE as a hard requirement before nominating mass-created stubs, especially given the unequivocal conflict with WP:BURDEN and the WP:FAIT situation this would result in. To be completely clear: I think that, yes, being able to review and nominate new or unreviewed articles, at a speed comparable to the rate at which they are created, is a core and necessary part of our process; and, therefore, it is entirely correct to disregard the BEFORE requirement when nominating auto-generated stubs or similar mass-created articles, which would break the process if it was not disregarded. No further explanation is required; the simple fact that a stub was mass-created is sufficient reason to skip the source-search recommendation in WP:BEFORE. That sort of thing is why it is merely a suggestion and not a requirement. Not only that, but I do not think you have (or can point to) a consensus otherwise, nor do I think that policy backs you up in asserting that BEFORE is a requirement for mass-created articles. Based on that I don't think it's reasonable to ask ArbCom to impose sanctions premised on your controversial interpretation of BEFORE. In practice, that request is asking ArbCom to decide an active policy dispute. If you disagree, the appropriate thing to do is to add things to evidence showing the consensus on policy you're referring to, not to argue with me here; I've pointed to several things that I think show that the relevant policy is in dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just as an example of what I said above (for people who feel that their proposal to make BEFORE mandatory even for automated or mass-created articles). According to the evidence, Lugnuts has created 94,367 articles - largely, I presume, automatically or semi-automatically, often with minimal or nonexistent sourcing. To review those articles and search for sources for them, at one minute an article, would take over 1572 hours; working full-time, 8 hours a day, five days a week, entirely to search for sources for Lugnuts' articles, at one minute each, would take you the better part of a year. If Lugnuts (or people who want to retain those articles) feel that it is important that we retain them, then they can put in the time to do the necessary searches themselves; but insisting that a search is necessary before merely challenging such articles via AFD plainly contradicts WP:BURDEN, contradicts WP:V (which requires sources once a challenge has been made), and has the practical effect of putting the bulk of Lugnuts' contributions, collectively, beyond any reasonable challenge. In fact, many of the arguments made by people pushing for sanctions based on this implicitly concedes this - the argument is that someone who nominated just a small portion of Lugnuts' articles could not reasonably have done a BEFORE search before doing so. If even the people who believe that that search is "easy" concede that it is impossible for one person to have actually reviewed and challenged even a small portion of Lugnuts' contributions under the policy interpretation they are pushing for, then how, exactly, do they envision such articles getting reviewed? And Lugnuts is not the only person producing huge numbers of auto-generated stubs, merely the most prolific. This is the sort of unusual situation that policies with suggestions rather than requirements exist for; more specifically, I do not think that anyone has any requirement to perform a search - not even a brief, cursory one; not even the easiest, simplest ten-second one - when nominating such mass-created articles for deletion. It's cool if they do, but eg. TPH flatly deciding that the prolific way such mass-produced articles were created means that they're going to decline to do the search for sources before nominating them is a valid exercise of editorial discretion. --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please don't be suprised when someone actually does something they have the authority to do. If the volume is a problem for one, then it's a problem for all. Should everyone be limited to just creating X articles per day? Maybe. Do we currently have that rule in place? Not that I am aware of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think that per WP:FAIT, editors do not actually have the authority to create large numbers of stubs automatically or semi-automatically, at least once it is clear some people object. But even if you feel they do, it is plainly a WP:BOLD thing to do; and BOLD actions can be undone by anyone at any time, after which you stop, discuss, and reach a consensus. That means that mass-article creation clearly justifies similarly rapid-fire PRODs, redirects, or AFDs of the articles that were created in that manner, without going through all of the customary or suggested steps that that would normally require. The point of my comment is that without that principle (ie. BOLD actions can be undone quickly and easily, including when they touch on article creation), there would be no realistic way to challenge the automated creation of tens of thousands of stubs, since even the "minimal" search people are suggesting above would take hundreds of hours. --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: This is in a threaded discussion in analysis of evidence, where it's probably going to be mostly missed. Speaking personally, I think it would help me if this were highlighted in evidence, with supporting links, and if you think it's a more general problem than with one user, including analysis of multiple users. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE turns our WP:BURDEN policy on its head and creates hours of work to clean up articles that were created in a matter of minutes. In my opinion, articles that were mass created should be eligible for mass deletion, and it would be immensely helpful to have a community process to identify groups of stubs that meet certain criteria and delete them through an expedited process. –dlthewave ☎ 04:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• For the purposes of this case, what the Arbitration Committee needs to do is to suggest the community holds an RfC to decide on whether WP:BEFORE is mandatory, recommended or optional.

At that RfC, I would say that your WP:BEFORE search needs to be proportional. If it's a detailed and plausible article by an editor whose other work is sound, then a proper WP:BEFORE would involve a diligent search of the literature; but if it's an obfuscated copyvio by a serial copyright violator then you can reasonably CSD it without a BEFORE at all. If it's a stub authored by a prolific creator of ill-referenced stubs, then you ought to be able to fulfil your WP:BEFORE duties with a quick glance at the google search results.—S Marshall T/C 18:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

S Marshall - My issue here is that where articles have been mass-created, even a "quick glance at the google search results" takes a prohibitively long time. Carlossuarez46's "Iranian village" articles are a classic example of this - there were many, many thousands of these and the author hadn't bothered to distinguish at all between what might be considered barely notable under WP:GEOLAND and what could not. In the specific case of JPL, most (all?) of the objected to deletions/prods would not be countered by a glance at the first page of a Google search for the name of the subject, especially because they typically concern early 20th-century Olympians for whom there is no non-sports-stats-database online source.
More generally my feeling on this is that WP:BEFORE is good practise for bringing an article to AFD but that trying to codify it is impossible since the number of sources that theoretically could be looked at is limitless. FOARP (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: "Lugnuts has disruptively disputed prods"

Is it really disruptive to remove PRODS if all of the AFDs (save for the one still open) were ultimately closed with consensus to redirect, not delete? WP:PRODNOM specifically says to consider alternatives to deletion, including redirecting, before nominating an article. -- Vaulter 15:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it really disruptive to remove PRODS period? The rules for a PROD are basically that they can be removed by anybody. pbp 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe so; if an editor agrees that an article isn't notable but believes there is a suitable alternative to deletion then the non-disruptive action is to implement that alternative to deletion, rather than forcing the article to go through AfD. I also note the edit summaries provided when disputing the prods; possibly more about him via his army days for four of them, there could be more info in local sources, maybe local sources in English/Welsh press are available and should be looked into as a first option here, and possibilty of more info about him with his MCC connection, per https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17919. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture: In the April 2021 ANI thread which resulted in Lugnuts' loss of Autopatrolled rights, the closer noted that "There is very clear consensus that Lugnuts is repeatedly failing to verify information (as observed by Fram) and, when challenged, deflects this responsibility to other reviewers or the community at large." In these recent deprods/AfDs, using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Cuming as an example, Lugnuts has engaged in a pattern of 1) removing a PROD with the reason "possibilty of more info about him with his MCC connection, per https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17919" and voting "If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP." It's obvious that Lugnuts expects somebody else to find the sources to back up their claim of SIGCOV, which is the same behavior which they were warned about at ANI. The ability of anyone to remove a PROD tag for any reason should not be construed as license for an editor to continue their disruptive behavior after being warned. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

" It's obvious that Lugnuts expects somebody else to find the sources to back up their claim of SIGCOV" - that's the third false statement you've made on this page about me. I've never made any claim of SIGCOV. Read the edit summaries again that you quote - "possibilty of more info about him with his MCC connection" - that's not an unreasonable claim to de-prod an article. It then triggered the AfD, which I start with "If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect..." Maybe I should have added IF in bold. Someone who has access to sources that I don't have access to MAY have found more on him. If not, then it's redirected. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GreenC's reference to the TTN ArbCom case

• @GreenC: claims here that TTN was sanctioned for lising hundreds of TV episodes and character articles for deletion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Reading over the case, this does not appear to be true; in fact, one of the complaints there was that TTN was not using AFD, but was redirecting huge numbers of articles without discussion, even after being informed that the redirects were controversial. They used (or threatened to use) AFD on a few occasions, but the crux of the case was that they were, on the whole, not discussing or getting consensus for their actions in an AFD-style format and were repeatedly ignoring or subverting the consensus when they did seek it. This obviously isn't a precedent applicable to someone nominating many articles for AFD. --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

You are right misread. I have removed it for the moment. -- GreenC 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

ATD, consensus

This is an explanation of why I omitted WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 15#Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture from the evidence I submitted at ATD, consensus. I was the nominator, and it was endorsed (6 overturn/delete, 1 relist, 12 endorse).

1. Three active closers – Sandstein, Stifle, and Explicit – supported overturning, and the closing statement acknowledged this.
2. Per WP:Consensus#Levels of consensus (policy), an individual DRV cannot override a wider consensus. Furthermore, a consensus of one DRV's participants, DRV regulars, or even all closers does not necessarily reflect the consensus of AfD participants or the community at large.
3. The policy basis for a few of the endorses and the closing statement was the interpretation of ATD that my evidence rebuts.

This doesn't advance my point efficiently at the cost of around 120 words. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of Evidence by Robert McClenon

Deletion Debates Are Divisive

Articles for Deletion disputes are often divisive, which should not be surprising because editors care about the content of the encyclopedia. There are several factors that are involved in making some deletion discussions unpleasant:

• 1. Conflict of interest. Paid editors and their clients have a large investment in influencing deletion discussions.
• 2. Tendentiousness, sometimes by proponents of an article, and sometimes by opponents, and bludgeoning behavior.
• 3. Editors who nominate large numbers of articles for deletion, and annoy other editors.
• 4. Editors who create large numbers of poor-quality articles, which are then nominated for deletion.
• 5. Ultras and fan clubs, who are sometimes mistaken for paid editors, but who are good-faith editors, and who have an emotional commitment to particular subjects (often musicians or entertainers).

Sometimes contentious deletion discussions are then repeated at Deletion Review.

The community is divided not only by deletion debates, but also by WP:ANI cases involving editors in deletion discussions. The editors who are parties to this case are not the only editors about whom there have been repeated cases at WP:ANI. Some of the disputes have been inconclusive or repetitive. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Concern about use of AFD statistics

AFD statistics are naïve metrics, and should not be used to infer that editors are inclusionist or deletionist, at least not without attention to how an editor contributes to Wikipedia. I discuss this further at User:Robert McClenon/Volunteer Roles and Deletion Discussions. In particular, editors may appear to be deletionist because they are working New Page Patrol, where their responsibilities include keeping spam and other crud out of the encyclopedia, and editors may appear to be inclusionist because they are working on Wikiprojects to expand encyclopedic coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

YouTube and notability

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cerebral726 mentions TPH discounting a YouTube video from a verified account during an AfD. However, from what I understand, for a source to contribute to GNG it should be written SIGCOV, not primary video. Can this be clarified? JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I understand, video sources may be frowned upon for accessibility and convenience reasons, but there is no a priori reason to exclude them from qualifying as "significant coverage". consensus regarding YouTube is that Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Since the video in question is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, that would seem to apply; at the very least, one would have to argue that it is insubstantial, rather than assert that it's no good ...because it's a YouTube video. Nuff said. (Directly in reply to a comment that linked to a summary of community consensus.)

Having not seen that AfD until now, I'm also concerned about the seeming inability to tell the difference between formal peer review and a teacher grading a student's paper, the idea that a copy of a peer-reviewed journal article posted in an open repository is self-published, and the apparent conviction that There is literally no way something written BY A STUDENT can be reputable, which at best is ignorant of how academia works. That's a lot of at-best dubious takes about sources, one after the other, held to rather tendentiously. XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

YouTube videos from verified RS can of course be used for content in an article, but it's not at all clear that they are satisfactory for establishing notability, since primary sources are strongly discouraged for this purpose and OR specifically lists videos as primary sources. Anecdotally, I also don't think I've ever seen videos successfully used as SIGCOV at AfDs; IME when they are offered they're generally rejected out-of-hand. JoelleJay (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

In this situation I do not think the fact that it is a video makes it a primary source. From your link, the relevant part of the note is "video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, etc. [...] and artistic and fictional works such as [...] videos". Since this isn't any of those types of videos (it's an informative news report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation), there is no reliability/notability-establishing difference between this video and if it was written out. Regardless of the specifics though, XOR stated it very succinctly that the real issue was a lot of at-best dubious takes about sources, one after the other, held to rather tendentiously, and I specifically took issue with the refusal to meaningfully engage with reasonable arguments.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think the fact that it is a video makes it a primary source. I have to agree here. I watch a lot of videos on YouTube, some of them (e.g. vlogs) are clearly primary sources that are not even close to reliable, others are discussions of peer reviewed scientific papers and explicitly cite their sources and so are directly equivalent to, and possibly even more reliable than, newspaper and magazine articles about the same topic. In the same way that The Daily Mail and The Times can present the same story in the same medium with very different levels of reliability, a video about the same story published by The Australian Broadcasting Corporation can have a very different level of reliability to a video published by a random bloke in Brisbane. In other words, it's the content that matters not the format. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor, I will argue that it is the producer/publisher of the video that determines reliability, not the content. - Donald Albury 16:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a mix of both. An unknown person making a video that cites academic sources is better than an advertorial published by a major news source. A video by the latter citing the same sources as the first would probably be better than either. (In all these cases I'm presuming there is some reason why the video adds something over citing the sources directly). This is particularly true if the producer/publisher has a mixed record on reliability or is regarded reliable for some subjects but not others. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

An unknown person posting a video should not be trusted at all. The best thing one could do in that situation is go look for the sources they claim to cite. If the publisher is not reliable the video is about as good as a blog post for our purposes, no matter how carefully-crafted. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh I'm not disagreeing with your other points about TPH, or that his behavior in this specific situation was justifiable, I was just pointing to a potential reason he might have had for dismissing the source. I can see I was misapplying the argument against primary sources in this case, so my original point is moot. JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

To me, discussing the validity of using YouTube videos for a reliable source is a worthwhile discussion--but far away from the scope of what this discssion is about. The outcome of it could fall either way and it really wouldn't impact what we discuss here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Conversation spur by Barkeep49

The evidence submitted focuses primarily on alleged misconduct of named parties. While there is some evidence submitted of broader issues with conduct in deletion-related editing, the evidence is insufficient to justify any topic-wide remedy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So I am posting to spur conversation and to invite those who might disagree with the statement to point to specific evidence that suggests it is wrong. When I voted to accept this case, I was specifically open to larger AfD issues in addition to an examination of conduct of specific editors. However, I am having a hard time finding evidence of the kind that would justify DS or some other largescal remedy (see also the RfC idea I floated above). But yet we have a lot of editors saying there is a broader problem.

Which leaves one of two scenarios. They're right or they're a vocal minority. If they're right I would prefer not to have an Infobox situation where it takes 3 cases for the committee to finally reach a long term sustainable answer. But at the moment I don't see a lot of evidence to point to and we didn't get any serious effort to add other parties - which itself would have been a signal to me of larger disruption. So I post this to give those who see broader issues a chance to point to specific evidence and make their best case for broader AfD disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• @JoelleJay: yes your evidence does attempt to make that case. In terms of your questions/frustrations, with respect I feel like I did answer your question on June 29th in that very discussion area. As for the parties/evidence piece, let me try to clarify. I was suggesting that if multiple people had attempted to add others as a party, that could have, in and of itself, been a sign of wide disruption. But it's not the only way it can be demonstrated which is why I've written this conversation spur. I am looking for those, like yourself, who are looking for broad remedies to put the best case forward that they can using the evidence that was submitted to us. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay: evidence submitted at the case request is completely acceptable and I had not reviewed that recently. So that's a good point and something I will do. That said I didn't find your subsequent question all that different from what I had answered - and frankly still don't - beyond you asking it of another arb, which is totally fair to do since there could be differing perspectives. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay: obviously I didn't understand that distinction at the time. If it makes you feel better I'd have likely given a non-committal/slightly encouraging answer as I'm loathe to talk to specifically about specific evidence during this phase of a case. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  JoelleJay I will give thought to your assertion that the train and NSPORT rfcs demonstrate consensus that there is widespread agreement that there are ongoing and long-term systematic problems at AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• @HighKing: thought on some of what you wrote:

  There is widespread agreement that there are ongoing and long-term systematic problems at AfD. What evidence do you have of this widespread agreement? There is not, for instance, an RfC that has established such agreement.

  Some !votes quote inappropriate guidelines We do have some evidence of this. But I don't believe we have evidence that this is widespread and frankly I see most of the evidence we have about this is either good faith disagreement over the guidelines and most (all?) of the remaining evidence is owed to the recent NSPORT change which seems understandable given that it's both new (so some users are still learning/adjusting) and the final outcome of that change remains fluid. Do you see submitted evidence that isn't one of these?

  Some guidelines contradict others I don't believe we have submitted evidence of this.

  There's ... lets call it confusion ... over how SNGs work alongside GNG We have some submitted evidence of this around NSPORT, but even that is hardly overwhelming and again seems to be as much about the recent large scale change as anything.

  There is no onus on !voters to justify/explain/evidence their !vote if asked We might have submitted evidence for this - I'd have to rereview with this idea in mind. Is there submitted evidence you can point to that shows this?

  There is a BATTLEGROUND mentality at AfDs There has been submitted evidence about a battleground mentality for the four named parties. Beyond that there has been submitted evidence basically around two other editors. Given just how many people contribute to AfDs this seems hugely insufficient to show a BATTLEGROUND mentality across the project area.

HighKing, you're not the first person to make these kinds of claims at this case. My problem as an arbitrator is that I generally need some kind of firm evidence that this is true, in the same way that we need evidence before making a controversial statement about a BLP, and not just the assertions of some editors. This whole thread has been sparked by what I see as a tension between the number of people saying there are large problems and what I see as the paucity of evidence that's been provided to show those problems. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Lurking shadow: I share your concern that we're headed towards a repeat case and said as much in my initial comment here. Yes the scope was large - this gave people the freedom to submit what they thought relevant. What the word limit does is force people to prioritize what they think important because can't submit everything. The rules of ArbCom state that we need to use evidence submitted to us to make our decision. So I started this conversation to see if people could show that what was relevant and a priority - that is the submitted evidence - could support something other than a narrow decision. I have appreciated FOARP and BilledMammal, and to a lesser extent JoelleJay, making the case for a wider decision. I will be considering what they have to say as I am still very much in process of considering evidence as we have begun to actually write the proposed decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• @Dlthewave: fair point that some of NSPORT has been settled and that there are some interim aspects of NSPORT in place. I will give another look at the evidence in place about AfD closes but my starting bias is that "admin who haven't updated their practice to reflect new commmunity consensus need to change but doing it at ArbCom might be rather excessive to the task." Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I asked for clarification on what type and amount of evidence arbs wanted to address larger-scale issues, waited a week with no response, and then submitted additional evidence with an edit summary specifically asking whether more detailed analysis was needed. My evidence was also intended to be representative of the widespread problems in AfD !voting, not an exhaustive catalogue of behavior across all AfD topics, although Trainsandotherthings and HighKing corroborated that these issues are persistent in other topic areas, too.

I don't particularly understand how adding more parties would have been better evidence of broad disruption; individually none of the editors I mention/who appear in my evidence have behavioral problems that I believe warrant the threat of arbcom sanctions, not least because they haven't been formally disciplined for their behavior before(*). Furthermore, as I said in the case request stage, the evidence talk page, and here, demonstrating breadth necessarily means showing disruption from a large number of editors; while demonstrating longterm repeated disruption means curating multiple instances of disruption for each editor. Since I was instructed over email to give category 1 notices to the two editors I go into detail on, I assumed the same would be required for anyone else I investigated with that level of thoroughness. However no one answered my question of whether it was acceptable or feasible to add dozens of editors as new parties. This was eventually straightened out a bit when y'all said I didn't have to add GS and Ortizesp as parties even though they needed category 1 notices, but now it sounds like adding them would have somehow been of greater evidentiary benefit? It also wasn't obvious that further parties could be added after the first deadline.

(*)Because the people who would template them for disruptive !voting patterns are the ones they're arguing with, which could be seen as pointy; because admins looking to close an AfD don't want to become involved by warning a participant; and because only the editors who regularly participate in the same AfDs would even recognize that the !votes were part of a longer pattern and not one-off misinterpretations of P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, yes you did answer my June 28 question; it's my July 1 question on which aspect of my evidence was weak (demonstrating longterm and recognized disruption from the two specific editors vs demonstrating the same as representative of a broader issue) that I never got feedback on. On June 29 I also attempted to explain why we wouldn't see intractable ANI cases for these behaviors (which Dlthewave also mentions below), even though it should be clear there IS an enormous degree of disapproval of the behaviors. Like the fact that any ANI thread related to a highly-active AfD editor of either persuasion immediately becomes hyperpolarized and devolves into a dozen complaint threads about the same behaviors I brought up. My case request also included examples of those behaviors being singled out as reasons to TBAN Andrew Davidson. Keep and Delete !voters are fed up with essentially the same shitty AfD etiquette, but only when it is attached to editors on the other "side"; that's why we don't get anywhere addressing the issues when proposals are made by people identified as inclusionist or deletionist. They are supported or opposed on party lines rather than on merit, so people stop bringing AfD conduct issues to the noticeboards until/unless egregious incivility arises that can't be justified by the other bloc. ArbCom should be a way to bypass this roadblock. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, what my second question was mostly getting at was: is the level of detail I went into for GS and Ortizesp sufficient for showing they have been consistently disruptive (not asking for a judgment here on whether they actually were, just whether the amount of evidence could be used to show this), and thus would need to be repeated for any new individual I added to my evidence. JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm looking at the case request I can't seem to find where I discussed the Andrew Davidson TBAN where a ton of editors condemned particular AfD !voting behaviors. I'll try and find where I made that comment. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Still can't find it, I'm thinking it may have been an early version of my case request comment that never got published. Essentially it quoted numerous editors from this thread pointing to AD's various poor AfD arguments as reasons why he should be TBANNED. That case is linked in the Evidence section, but since I can't edit the page I can't search for "Archive1083" to find where it is specifically. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Using View source, I found one link to ARS Proposal #3 near the beginning of your first subsection. There are nine other links to different sections of IncidentArchive1083. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!! Somehow I didn't think to check my own evidence section. I guess I didn't expand on the AfD conduct complaints in that thread as much as I should have, in particular all the comments on "superficial ref-bombing" wasting the community's time. That was one facet of poor AfD behavior that I wanted to touch on more in my evidence but didn't have room to do so. JoelleJay (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I see this as a deeply entrenched systemic issue that isn't well represented by evidence of individual misconduct. When an editor !votes Keep at AfD and the article is kept (or even survives DRV), issuing warnings or opening an ANI thread is likely to be seen as disruptive. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable adding someone as a party in that situation. The major part of the conflict that needs to be addressed is that admins have been allowing local consensus at AfD to override policies and guidelines which are supported by global consensus, and other admins being unwilling to second-guess the judgement of these admins. I think that the best way to address this would be to set clear expectations going forward along with clear consequences for editors who do not comply, rather than sanctioning editors who followed what was common (yet incorrect) practice at the time. More "we need to change these practices", less "we need to sanction these editors". –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer to this question is what the locus of the dispute is; is it the systematic problems at AfD that are causing behavioural issues, or is it the behavioural issues themselves?

If the former, I believe there is sufficient evidence to support action; a few editors have provided evidence of local consensuses overruling global consensuses, and I note Beeblebrox's comment at #Manual of style governs presentation, not content; while evidence has not been provided of articles being deleted based on the MOS, examples have been provided of articles being kept based on the MOS. In addition, I believe there is broad agreement that AfD is ill-suited to addressing the mass creation of articles, both because attempting to address it through AfD overloads the process, and because attempting to address it through AfD places a disproportionate burden on those wishing to revert the bold mass creation.

I also note that a large number of editors, including both parties that presented evidence, made a case that the issue extended beyond the named parties; MER-C, Mangoe, Northamerica1000, JoelleJay, Trainsandotherthings, Scottywong, Dlthewave, BilledMammal, Liz, Star Mississippi, Robert McClenon, GiantSnowman, Lugnuts, and 7&6=thirteen all did so. For my own evidence, I would also note that my decision to not present evidence against non-parties in good standing was a choice; I believe the issues here to be systematic, and while I could have presented extensive evidence of aspersions and personal attacks, I don't believe addressing those would resolve the underlying issues here.

I did intend to present some evidence of canvassing of WikiProjects through non-neutral notifications, and that would have involved mentioning, but not focusing on, edits by non-party editors in good standing, but I suspect my request for a word extension came too late. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the individuals under discussion here have created so many articles that the specific issues with their articles becomes a topic-wide problem. As noted above, if Lugnut's mass-created cricket/olympics stubs were to be thoroughly reviewed this would be a full time job for a whole team of editors. FOARP (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• There is widespread agreement that there are ongoing and long-term systematic problems at AfD. Others have been more active in detailing those problems. For me, the primary problem is difficult to articulate without making it sound critical of specific individuals. I agree with the points raised by JoelleJay previously. I also agree with Dlthewave above that the disruption isn't well represented by evidence of individual misconduct and admins have been allowing local consensus at AfD to override policies and guidelines which are supported by global consensus.

We have heard from a variety of different editors who point to arguments at AfD. Not limited to the following:

• Some !votes quote inappropriate guidelines
• Some guidelines contradict others
• There's ... lets call it confusion ... over how SNGs work alongside GNG
• There is no onus on !voters to justify/explain/evidence their !vote if asked
• There is a BATTLEGROUND mentality at AfDs

And all of those AfDs containing any number of the above issues are then examined by a closing admin who uses their ... discretion? experience? mystic powers? ... to reach a decision on the topic, often with no explanation as to the decision.

• There is a lack of consistency in how AfDs are closed.
• The decision-making process is entirely opaque

I suggest it might be worthwhile to think about addressing the issues at AfD, not by examining the conduct of individual editors which appears to be a focus of this case due to the manner in which the problem was articulated, but by addressing the issue of ensuring consistent and high quality closing decision making at AfD

• Use a checklist. (Perhaps each Guideline should include one). Closing admins would benefit from a checklist to ensure that each of the following is addressed: Which sources were identified as Independent/Significant/Reliable/etc. Which guidelines were taken into account? Which !votes contributed to the rough consensus (or perhaps easier to identify which !votes didn't)?

There is no doubt that better visibility and consistency will drastically reduce the disruption we see at AfD. Editors will learn that there's no need to respond to every !vote quoting an inappropriate guideline (as JoelleJay and others mentioned previously) because there will be confidence that those !votes will be discounted at the close. Editors will learn to avoid BATTLEGROUND behaviours for the same reasons . Editors will learn that canvassing (meat-!voting and !vote-stacking) that simply increases a head-count for one determination or another won't bend the AfD towards their desired outcome. So, the question back to Barkeep49 is whether the above is out-of-scope and if not, whether there is insufficient evidence that be addressed at this stage? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: The case scope is "Conduct in deletion-related editing". This is a massive case scope potentially involving hundreds of editors and lots and lots of evidence buried somewhere. But the timeframe was just extended by one week and the evidence cap was not changed at all. Of course people sacrificed a lot of info for the evidence cap. This is obvious. What you are asking for is simply not realistic if you put up a draconian evidence cap and time limit like this(at least in relation of the scope). For a case scope like this, with evidence warranted upon widespread disruption the evidence cap should at least have been ten times as large, maybe even larger. What you are doing right now will lead towards a case named "Conduct in deletion-related editing 2" or similar. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• I had a vague comment about the difficulty of keeping up with the number of articles being created (in terms of giving them proper review and, if necessary, deleting ones that require deletion), specifically making the point that it would take the better part of a year of full-time 9-to-5 work to review every mass-produced article that one of the parties created. Another arb asked me to write it up as more detailed evidence but I ran out of time... but I'm also skeptical that it's something that ArbCom can solve. It seems to me that the core problems are either issues with our article-creation, review, and deletion policies that don't line things up right, plus disagreements on policies related to that. These things require RFCs and discussion and workshopping by editors. I'm not sure even an ArbCom-mandated RFC can do more than solve the most basic issues. If you look at the larger discussions about how overwhelmed NPP is, here and here, it's clear that we need thoughtful, tailored solutions, which will require extensive community discussion and probably multiple RFCs to determine what we want. The conduct issues in this ArbCom case are relevant in the sense that I do feel some of the parties here are responsible for a lot of the intractability and general battleground nature of AFD-related discussions (which will need to calm down so we can come up with solutions), but the root problem is best solved by determining the crux disagreements and resolving them, which ArbCom can unfortunately have little if any role in. Years ago, the first time "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" battleground disputes emerged, we resolved them, I think, by reaching a clear consensus that WP:N was required and clear guidelines about what satisfied it; we need something like that again, rather than worrying about wider conduct issues that are ultimately downstream of the core disagreements. My own suggestion is eg. a series of changes that clearly shifts the burden of WP:BEFORE source-searches to people who created or want to remove an article, and which make it extremely quick and easy to delete articles which people decline to present even token sources for. Anyway, my point is, there's definitely a broader problem, but I'm not sure it's really one that is best resolved at an ArbCom level. If people are regularly ignoring or misrepresenting our existing guidelines, and closers are bad at dealing with this, as some have alleged, that might be a problem, though? --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding "Some guidelines contradict others" I don't believe we have submitted evidence of this. - I assume they're talking about WP:BEFORE (people nominating an article for deletion should do a search for sources) vs. WP:BURDEN (the people who created or wish to retain something must provide sources for it.) But beyond requiring an RFC there's only so much ArbCom can do about that. Another tangentially-related dispute is WP:ONUS vs. WP:NOCON, but I don't think that anyone has argued ONUS applies to deletion discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, could you clarify Template:...the final outcome of that change remains fluid? I understand that sports Wikiprojects are working on replacement SNGs, but the disputes we're discussing here involve aspects of WP:NSPORTS2022 that have already been implemented and would not be changed by rewritten SNGs, those being the requirement that at least one SIGCOV source be included in the article and the change of SNGs from "presumed notability" to "coverage is likely to exist". I believe that some of the AfDs presented as evidence, particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Kausar, were closed by individuals who mistook misrepresentation/misinterpretation/nonacceptance of the guideline as good-faith disagreement. At this point there should be no confusion/disagreement/fluidity over these points. –dlthewave ☎ 22:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• (EC) What evidence do you have of this widespread agreement? There is not, for instance, an RfC that has established such agreement. Why would we have had an RfC specifically for establishing that there is a "general problem" with AfD conduct? I believe the ANI reports for the named parties and ARS members demonstrate widespread frustration among both "inclusionist" and "deletionist" editors, largely about the same broad behaviors: "drive-by !votes", guideline non-compliance, IDHT (especially about sources and guidelines), and closer inconsistency. How many diffs of individual editors complaining would one need to show community discontent?

Anyway, we have had RfCs on AfD-adjacent topics, they just did't identify and propose remedies addressing behavior directly, but rather sought to change the issues thought to enable poor behavior. The WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC was essentially a response to a) editors creating tens of thousands of athlete kittens without even considering whether the subjects met GNG, as explicitly required by the old and current NSPORT guideline; b) editors misusing the sport-specific guidelines to argue inherent or at least indefinitely-irrebuttable notability at AfD, basically assuring a double fait accompli; and c) sports wikiprojects creating and vigorously defending the overly-permissive SSGs and stonewalling both attempts at tightening criteria and attempts at applying the overarching NSPORT requirements to SSG subjects. Despite sports projects being canvassed multiple times, the wider community approved multiple subproposals: requiring at least one SIGCOV source be present in all sports articles, removing participation-based SSG criteria (effectively eliminating many SSGs including NFOOTY), and replacing "presumed notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist". This was supposed to make it easier to delete articles on non-notable sportspeople, by reaffirming the need for GNG and deprecating any arguments that relied on professional sporting appearances. And yet here we are, months after the changes were formally implemented (also via a series of page protections and RfCs because opposing editors delayed and obstructed closure implementation), seeing the exact same arguments still holding sway at deletion discussions because the same bloc of editors who would achieve "local consensus" through numerical advantage under the old guideline is doing the exact same thing with the new one. Even the subproposal that got the most overwhelming support -- mandating a SIGCOV source be cited in all articles from inception -- has been completely ignored at AfD and DRV; again, due to the people who opposed the subproposals being active at AfD and DRV and closers being unwilling to go against majority numbers.

This is a major problem because it means decisions by the global community have zero influence at AfD. It means no matter how many editors support a guideline amendment in an RfC(*), and despite ROUGHCONSENSUS stating a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area, it can never override even the smallest local AfD majority on its own. It means the same guideline at the article creation, patrolling, review, or editing level has a completely different implementation at the deletion level. So how can we expect the community to resolve guideline-based issues at AfD if it is utterly powerless to enforce any remedies?

(*)(h/t Trainsandotherthings) For another example, compare the claim by certain AfD participants that "consensus has long established that all train stations are inherently notable" to the rapidly emerging sitewide consensus here, which has at least 40 !votes arguing against any inherent notability for any subset of train stations versus at most 28 !votes for the other three options combined. Do you think the editors who are still asserting a consensus for inherent notability will respect an outcome that requires GNG to be met? Of course not, they will just continue making the same basic argument at AfDs just like they did after the other RfCs, and other editors will have to expend enormous effort disputing that argument each and every time in the hope that maybe a closer will give more weight to guideline-based !votes than to !votes that explicitly reject overwhelming consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the train stations RfC, a few editors have tried to argue things like "WP:CONSENSUS, which trumps all other "rules" on WP, has long held that stations are inherently notable. I don't see a limited consensus by an RfC at for a few days in July, 2022 superseding the long standing consensus." which is a fundamental distortion of how consensus works. It should go without saying that consensus can change, but a few determined editors have decided that when a consensus forms against their position, it must be discarded as invalid, and that consensus is set in stone and must never change. Consensus formed at a number of AfDs attended by the same few editors is the very definition of a limited consensus, compared to a site-wide RfC. While I maintain hope that editors will respect the outcome of this RfC, I expect what JoelleJay predicts will play out, with the same editors repeating the exact same arguments (literally, copy-pasting "all train stations are inherently notable" at every AfD). Much like a court decision, a global consensus (and for that matter, our policies and guidelines) is meaningless if unenforced. There has been near zero enforcement against persistent bad actors at AfD, apart from the ANI thread last year which sanctioned a few ARS members. We also have to deal with closers who just count votes, even if those votes are 5 instances of "Keep, I like it and there's one source which claims it exists" against a sole thoroughly argued delete or redirect or merge vote, or vice versa.

What I'd like to see come from this case is some mechanism to deal with repeated, persistent bad actors at AfD. Our problem is that we can't take all the at least dozens of editors who could easily fall under the scope of this case and ask ArbCom to figure out what to do with every single one. We need something that can work long-term. I'm not saying some kind of AfD DS is automatically the answer, but I can't think of anything better that ArbCom could realistically do.

We also have issues with mass stub creation. Over the past year, it's become clear that the community is not willing to tolerate mass stub creation, and I'm sure you are all familiar with Lugnuts' active community restriction on making stubs. It's significantly more work to perform a BEFORE and create an AfD nomination for each of a ton of 1-2 sentence stubs than it is for someone to quickly create them en masse with no regard to if they are notable or not. And attempting to deal with someone who mass created non-notable stubs leaves one open to allegations of targeting. In 2004, we weren't so strict about article creations because Wikipedia was a niche corner of the internet nowhere near its size. Today, enWiki alone has over 6 million articles and is used by millions of readers a day. We need to have some sort of quality control if we want to keep serving readers. Essential to that is a properly operating AfD process.

Others have laid out the problems far better than I can, as an editor with only 1 year of experience on Wikipedia. In general, we need better enforcement of our existing policies and guidelines within AfD, and more scrutiny applied towards poor closes which just count the votes. We also need a process to deal with those who persistently disrupt AfD, be that by bludgeoning, personal attacks, or intentional policy and guideline ignorant voting, with remedies including TBANs from AfD if necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no WP:SENIORITY and I think part of our issues are too many comments from editors who have been around a long time. If you have a better idea, put it on the table.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at this through the lens of "what can ArbCom realistically do" and I'm largely coming up empty apart from DS. ArbCom isn't the Supreme Court. It can't write policy. I want to see better enforcement of our existing policies and guidelines during AfD, and potentially a series of RfCs to figure out exactly what community consensus is on various facets of the disputes that routinely play out in AfD, but ArbCom can't really wave a wand and force that to happen. What ArbCom can do is give suggestions. The named parties have been prolific at AfD, but even if they were all TBANNed from AfD the problems with its functioning wouldn't go away. I find myself wishing there were a middle ground between having DS and not having DS. Something that's like DS-lite, so as to make AfD still accessible for newer editors while also promoting better behavior. Perhaps a remedy of "Editors, and particularly closers of deletion discussions, are reminded that AfD is not a vote, and editors are expected to put thought into their participation and cite policies and guidelines when appropriate"? Very rough wording but I think it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking.

I appreciate you saying there is no seniority, but in practice there very much is. I've had an admin attack me as someone with "only 11 months of experience" recently. I originally wasn't planning to get involved in this case at all, but the train stations RfC ended up tying in to it in a way I absolutely did not originally intend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

On targeting articles

I note that in the evidence Lugnuts has presented they repeat their accusation from the ANI thread that prompted this case that John Pack Lambert was targeting their article creations, and they make the same accusation against me. I believe the accusation against me demonstrates why the accusation against John Pack Lambert is incorrect; we are the two main editors targeting articles on Olympians, and because of the large number of articles on Olympians created by Lugnuts, this results in a correlation that they mistake for causation.

This misunderstanding should have been cleared up when I presented statistical evidence that demonstrated it was just correlation at ANI (linked in S Marshall's evidence), as well as when Cryptic presented such evidence in relation to John Pack Lambert in this case, but it wasn't. Instead, they dismissed the evidence and continued to issue such accusations, which I believe demonstrates part of the issue of addressing Lugnut's mass article creation; rather than recognizing that their mass article creation has been disruptive, they instead seek to disrupt the process to address this disruption by deterring editors from closely reviewing topic areas that they have engaged in the mass creation of articles within. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well it's fact, as both of you have deliberately targeted articles I've started. The ANI thread alone shows that JPL was continuing to do that DURING that thread! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Obpolicylinks: WP:Harassment#Accusing others of harassment and WP:Harassment#What harassment is not address this directly. I deliberately didn't submit evidence of Lugnuts' repeated but ultimately baseless claims of harassment because I'd hoped he just hadn't crunched the numbers (and, to a lesser extent, because there's plenty of them in the ANI threads others linked to). Lugnuts' late reiteration of his accusations during this case - and in his submitted evidence, no less - kind of torpedoes that notion. —Cryptic 05:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: