This is a request for the Arbitration Committee primarily to review the Article Rescue Squadron and the conduct of certain editors who are associated with it, and secondarily to review the conduct of any other editors, and to determine whether ArbCom discretionary sanctions are needed to deal with disruptive editors in deletion discussions.

Deletion discussions are among the most difficult and contentious content disputes in Wikipedia, and they sometimes polarize the community into 'inclusionism' and 'deletionism', and they are sometimes disrupted by conduct. The Article Rescue Squadron, consisting of 'inclusionist' editors, has been controversial for more than a decade.

During the listed contentious discussion, Andrew Davidson was topic-banned from deletion discussions by the community, and there was no resolution as to the other three named editors. ArbCom is of course asked to review the cases of all of the named editors and others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dream Focus

Its not yet closed at ANI yet. It was started at 10:22, 24 October 2021 and dragged on to a very long debate. You need to wait until its closed then just file it here if you don't like the results over there. So far though, most seem to find nothing wrong with three of us, just told Andrew to not edit deletion discussions anymore. Dream Focus 00:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it closed now. Lightburst got sanctioned as well it seems. Oh well. Since the Wikiproject is not a living entity, no AI running the world yet unfortunately, is it just four specific users you had a problem with? After running for such a long time, I think the community worked things out already, so this has no purpose to it. Dream Focus 01:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Paul August "extremely disturbing" concern below. I saw everyone who regularly disagreed with any of us in AFDs pile up to complain. There were some who took sides with friends of theirs and avoided answering any direct questions, just there to pile on the attacks.

I honestly read every single thing posted, keeping track of it as it was ongoing. And I dd see some complaints that were legitimate, some were great distortions of what really happened, and were just people trying to get rid of someone who disagreed with them on what articles should be kept. Cherry picking random unrelated examples, sometimes from 8 years ago, and claiming these proved anything, I found rather ridiculous.

If just one thing could be listed, and everyone comment on that linked to bit to say who they agree or disagree with, without rambling about all over the place, things could've been done in a nice orderly manner. Too many people make statements to sway people's emotions, hoping they don't actually click on the links and read through it all, and think for themselves to form their own opinions.

It would be great if everyone got along, if no one went around calling others arseholes or arsholes and getting away with that. Or dismissing someone's opinions by claiming they always vote one way or the other, so that must be what's going on, instead of commenting on the reason they gave for their vote.

It would also be great if the rules of Wikipedia were set in absolutes. That the many years of constant arguing over things, would be solved by the Wikipedia Foundation. Not just have relentlessly arguing and edit warring of the guideline pages until one small group gets what they want put in there, but either the foundation deciding, or all editors just voting directly on the major issues one time to avoid future conflicts. Dream Focus 11:13, 4 November 2021‎

Statement by Andrew Davidson

I am advised that I am topic-banned from deletion-related activities and so I may not speak in defense of myself or my work as this relates to deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this procedure – some suppose that I would not want an arbcom case. This is incorrect as I would much prefer one to ANI. The proposal to topic ban me was discussed at ANI and enacted in less than 30 hours. Because I had a college reunion, a death in the family and other personal commitments, I was unable to give much time to this and so just looked at the top of the pile of supposed evidence. The first item about RfA was clearly irrelevant, being quite stale, obsolete and not connected with deletion. I said so briefly but had insufficient time and opportunity to cross-examine the great pile of other accusations. Another secret accusation was then made against me concerning WP:VPR. This was closed in under five hours and I've only now had a chance to take a close look at it and establish that it was quite mistaken. Such rushed proceedings are manifestly unjust.

Arbcom has a much more deliberate and well-organised process for the logging of evidence, digesting it and work-shopping remedies. As it usually takes weeks, it is much easier for participants to find time in their schedule for it. I would therefore prefer to do this properly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 00:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading the latest issue of the Signpost. In discussing the RfA reform, it makes the point that mud sticks. These links point to some apt commentary by Piotrus who has been my main accuser and antagonist in this matter but I endorse what he writes. Here's a choice extract, "editors may find themselves targeted by an editor or a tag team with a grudge and a well-thought out strategy: criticizing an editor for months or years, ruining his reputation ... don't "believe" the statements. Investigate the issue in detail, to make sure you are not missing crucial facts, and be aware that some editors may try to misrepresent certain facts on purpose, to make the other side look much worse then they really are". This is why I'm wanting a thorough, detailed investigation, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 7&6=thirteen

Statement by Lightburst

I would have preferred this orderly process. It is not an orderly process when editors are stockaded in the public square for 12 days. The "decade old ARS problem" which Drmies speaks of, is perhaps a great summary for the 70,000+ word thread. A number of administrators openly vocalized their disdain for the ARS project: both editors and administrators competed with each other to disavow the ARS project and say their members/editors are serious problem. Editors here use the word "community". They say the community has decided something. But it is not the community; it is a mob of editors who participate in a forum. A place where the person bringing the complaint may himself be banned if there are enough editors there with grievances. Back to the "decade old problem" - for twelve days any editor stained with ARS affiliation got what they got from a mob. That is not any community... it is an unpleasant free for all where editors dig up 8 year old grievances.

There is perhaps no other organization in the world which encourages its employees or volunteers to skewer each other for 12 days while the overlords pop popcorn. And then when the mob is done, Cesar puts down his popcorn and gives thumbs up or down. In this recent 12 day "Community" process, a sleeper who had not edited for three months came to ANI. I also saw an editor who has Ibans with two ARS members providing diffs of his own grievances because he could not join in the wilding. Another editor depreciated oppose ivoters with disclaimers under their ivotes. That same editor investigated oppose ivoters and placed inferential disclaimers beneath their ivote. If they had any ARS affiliation it was called out. That same editor was present another time when an administrator said they came up with a term for ARS. "ARSholes". I RPA'd it, but the mob agreed it was not a PA. Are their organizations anywhere in the world that allow volunteers to be treated this way? No, this is not the decision of a community or an organization's process. You are gaslighting us. In the end I accept the judgement of the mob and I am willing to look inward. I have been too confrontational and after participating in perhaps thousands of AfDs I am judged too incompetent to participate in AfDs. So take the case. Why should we be concerned with the humanity that Rhododendrites mentions.

Here is the humanity of the mob... My friend Andrew was taken before the mob once and punished severely. The next day he was taken before the mob again. When that proposal closed his talk page was slapped with an Arbcom notice. I even saw one of the mob chuckling on Andrew's talk page - doing some form of grave dancing. So take the case - maybe Arbcom can provide some order - because at any moment this organization's so called "community" can put these same editors back in the stockades. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC) 497[reply]

Statement by Rhododendrites

I'd urge the committee to decline this. ArbCom is for when we try to do things at ANI or other venues and cannot find a reasonable resolution. At the current ANI thread, at long last there are concrete tbans proposed about specific ARS members rather than focus on the whole project or an unwieldy group. One of those proposals has already been closed in favor of a sanction. Another is ongoing and unclear, while a third is ongoing but likely to find consensus against a sanction.

ANI has not failed to deal with the issue this time. I don't know why a case was opened at this point in time, but at minimum there should be some time to see how the outcomes affect the atmosphere at AfD and ARS. I don't think it's procedurally the right decision to turn this into an arbcom case now, and on the human level I don't think this is the time to drag the same people back through the wringer in an evidence phase. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

Contrary to Dream Focus's statement above that: most seem to find nothing wrong with three of us, Lightburst is now "banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months" per this close. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely disturbing that Dream Focus can read that ANI discussion and conclude that most seem to find nothing wrong with three of us. This does not bode well going forward. @Dream Focus: it would be good if you were able to recognize and acknowledge that in fact there is a problem with the behavior of the editors involved here.Paul August ☎ 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

Despite the many, many comments at the ANI thread decrying the idea that anything would be done, it is going to end with one indefinite t-ban, one temporary t-ban, and one stern warning. To me, that sounds like a lengthy and difficult but ultimately successful process. I strongly agree with Rhododendrites when they write on the human level I don't think this is the time to drag the same people back through the wringer in an evidence phase. --JBL (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

I've finished closing the discussions. I recommend that this be quickly declined. Rhododendrites is correct, on the human level I don't think this is the time to drag the same people back through the wringer in an evidence phase. That discussion was notably unpleasant even just as a reader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I also think the request should be declined for the same reasons: it's too soon to say that the community failed to handle this, as the varying sanctions suggest the community came to a nuanced consensus on how to go forward, and that consensus should be allowed a chance to work so we can see if it is successful in preventing disruption in the future. Also, I agree it's unfair (and unkind) to make editors who were just sanctioned/warned go through the process of defending the same actions that they were just sanctioned/warned for (absent their wanting to appeal of course). "Non bis in idem". If it were some days/weeks/months from now and there was still disruption, then we could say that the community wasn't able to resolve it, and let's go to arbcom instead of having another ANI mega-thread, but it's too soon to say that now, and I'm hopeful that won't happen at all. IIRC this is the first time in years that any ARS members have been sanctioned; let's give that a chance before investing more editor time/energy/emotion into this. Levivich 01:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

So it happened: an ANI thread at least partially solved a longterm problem--one that has bothered me for over a decade, and many others too. Given the two significant bans that came from it, I think arbitration now is not opportune. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SmokeyJoe

It must be declined. ArbCom is an avenue of last resort. This is very far from the last resort. Also, this is very content related. Inclusionism vs deletionism is a dynamic central to Wikipedia content, and ARS is a major feature of that content related dynamism. Asking ArbCom to proactively review editors involved in content philosophy risks a chilling effect on one side. The community can deal with individual behavioural issues, which could end up at ArbCom, but collective behavioural issues of the ARS in the deletionism battle is definitely not the purpose of ArbCom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To get involved, ArbCom would be engaging in the details. ArbCom should be the last resort, when ideas are exhausted, and a mass ban hammer action is required. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herostratus

The initiator starts with "This is a request for the Arbitration Committee primarily to review the Article Rescue Squadron and the conduct of certain editors..." and these are two really different things, so we want to be careful here. It's not really the ArbCom's normal remit to review and sanction projects, except in rather extreme cases, I think? The "conduct of certain editors" is more your wheelhouse. So if you do take the case you'll keep it just at that level, I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

If ARS is the problem? Then the community need only have an RFC at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals). I believe one was held 'there' two years, with the result being 'keep' ARS. Aside from that, seeing as 'some' of its members have now been 'restricted' to various degrees by the community? I reckon there's nothing for arbitrators to handle. The community has already done the task. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one thing positive about this request? It's that Arbcom is now fully aware of the topic-in-question, if they weren't before. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

This is one of the clearest examples I've seen in a long while of case requests where arbcom's response should be "not now, but not necessarily never". It's just way too soon to know whether the topic bans have resolved the issues or not, and/or whether they have caused other issues (e.g. excessively zealous deletionists, disruptive inclusionism in other venues or from other editors, etc), nor whether the community can handle such issues if they do arise. See where things are in 3-6 months or so and only then should an arbcom request be considered (hopefully it won't be necessary, but I'm making no predictions either way). Thryduulf (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

There are certainly some long-running systemic issues, giving rise to seriously unpleasant and nasty situations, both at AfD and at AN/I. Recently, we were able to witness dramatic examples of both at the same time. However, while I think it could be helpful for the Arbitration Committee to conduct some broad survey of deletion discussions and the conduct therein, it's not clear to me that it's productive to accept a case focusing primarily on several editors who were very recently the subjects of an excruciatingly long AN/I thread (which already reached conclusions about whether sanctions were condign). jp×g 09:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

The closer of the ANI thread, Wugapodes, suggested editors consider a discussion of the Article Rescue Squadron and whether it should be deprecated similar to Esperanza.[1] Meaning, I presume, taking the project to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, as was done with Esperanza. I support this. WP:MfD seems a better venue for discussing the project in a less personalized way, without focusing on individuals. As several people point out above, it would be inhumane to put the editors who were already sanctioned at ANI through the wringer again. Also it would surely now, after the ANI discussion, be more useful to look beyond the individuals and at the project as a whole. Bishonen | tålk 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Ravenswing

The community determined that two ARS members merited sanctions; those sanctions were imposed. It was likewise determined that sanctions against ARS or other editors were not merited. I'm unmoved by protests of how mean the process was -- I will grimly stack twelve days of tumult against the decade of uncivil insults on Dream Focus' page or the hundreds of egregious personal attacks by AD in AfDs -- and I'm unmoved by a mob muttering about the depredations of "mobs." But as I said at ANI, the best way to avoid charges that a witch hunt is in progress is not to have one. I respect Robert McClenon, but he's wrong here. The process worked. If six months from now there's still a problem ~~(and if the ANI thread wasn't a wakeup call, nothing will be)~~, the community can address it then.

(As a postscript, I'm unfortunately with Beeblebrox. Seeing some of the other statements -- tbanned for "overenthusiasm?????" -- strongly supports the "Lost Cause" premise, one which plainly sees the last week as a losing battle in an ongoing war. Alas.) Ravenswing 12:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Echoing the above statements, really. I would give it time to see if the actions taken at the ANI thread resolve the problems that have been caused; if such issues continue (and I have to admit that I suspect they will, even if not at the levels of previously, but you never know) then we can look at this again. MFD is, of course, an alternative at that point. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nfitz

After extensive discussion about all 4 parties at ANI, two have been topic-banned now, there is no sign of any problematic edits since then - so why open an Arbitration case now? There aren't even any links provided to problematic edits subsequent to the ANI discussion. This seems to be a witch hunt. Put down the pitchforks. Nfitz (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Celestina007 raises the question of ~~modifying~~ ARS itself. That would be a more valuable discussion - though presumably this isn't the forum, nor is it mentioned in the opening statement. Nfitz (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 - yeah, I phrased that badly. At the heart, I'm somewhat troubled that those trying to improve the project are being harshly sanctioned, for over enthusiasm; there's some bad examples. But there's lots of positive improvements to content over the years. Of course that can continue with the current restrictions - but these bans can be demoralizing. It's not like I'm seeing a lot of examples of deletes turned to keeps, solely by block voting - which according to the AFD process, should have no impact, in itself. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Celestina007

Generally speaking, I appreciate Robert's frustration because they Infact do make a point but with the sanctions giving to two of the named parties AD & LB, I believe there isn’t any lucid reason (for now) for this to be accepted. Having said, that the aforementioned persons are somewhat problematic is no doubt and the ANI expressly expounds on this, thus it is my opinion that any further disruptive behavior(s) from any of the involved parties not currently affected(sanctioned) should definitely warrant a sanction but like I stated earlier this report at this point is rather moot. Furthermore imho, the underlying issue isn’t so much the editors themselves, rather, I believe ARS (as a concept) is the problem. I can only imagine that (radical inclusionism) & ARS are concordant, anyone pledging to be a part of ARS is subconsciously agreeing to be an “inclusionist” no matter what. So once again, albeit I believe this report isn’t pertinent at this point i believe that if any of the other (unaffected) editors are to be reported again for behaviors not compatible with a collaborative project then very strict sanctions should be evoked. Addendum: Not to step on any toes but imho the concept of an editor here being an “inclusionist” or a “deletionist” in a project that prides itself in being “collaborative” is as counter intuitive as it is counter productive. To be honest even the very concept itself does us a major disservice. Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz, I’m afraid I didn’t raise the question of modifying ARS neither am I saying nor implying that this is a place to discuss this. I merely pointed at ARS potentially being the root cause of “radical inclusionism” as both are not mutually exclusive. I however do agree with you that discussing ARS is a more productive discussion than this. My thinking is that it isn’t far-fetched nor is it a stretch to say the named editors are to a reasonable and plausible degree victims of circumstance. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz, I totally understand your point. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkknight2149

Notably, the problem of disruption in deletion discussions is not limited to ARS or even so-called "inclusionist" boogeymen, but is often fueled by a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality between many "inclusionists" and "deletionists". I supported the TBAN on Andrew Davidson (everything except the prod ban), but I also recognised a few self-professed "deletionists" there (far from a majority, mind you) that are just as uncivil and disruptive as Andrew in several respects. The problem of deletion discussion disruption (DDD) will not be solved by simply reforming ARS. The scope needs to be larger. Dark knight 2149 16:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Jclemens said, and I will add that if we are going to remedy anything ("inclusionist" and "deletionist" are overrated labels in general, by the way), that's only going to happen if people put their content goals and biases in a box and approach the problem objectively. The existence of the Article Rescue Squad in itself is not a problem. Dark knight 2149 20:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the record, I would fully support lifting the deprod ban on Andrew Davidson. However, I vehemently oppose lifting the larger topic ban and would not consider such an appeal until the standard six months to a year have passed. Dark knight 2149 22:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

Arbcom should decline this case (and, by the looks of it, are). I find Wugapodes' closing comment at ANI rather telling: "An observation as closer: it is remarkable how unkind many comments were. Whether these topic bans will improve the situation is yet to be seen, but clearly there are wider dynamics at play with more players than those named here." Is there an urgent need to resolve this right now this minute? Why can't you all write an article or clear out the RFPP backlog or something? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

As I mentioned in the ANI thread, there's a difference between ARS and rabid inclusionism, and conduct issues are not simply limited to a few rabid inclusionists who associate themselves with ARS. This is going to be declined, but I suspect for the wrong reason. Cases are opened to look at severe and persistent issues, and while there are a handful of overzealous editors on the inclusionist side, there are also problematic attitudes and issues among the editors who usually clash with them. WP:BEFORE is a behavioral/process expectation, and WP:ATD is policy, and yet there are a number of editors who treat anyone who insists on either as if those editors are the ones clearly in the wrong and necessarily uncivil for even pointing out such process deficiencies. While our policies and processes are subject to consensus, which can change, any effort to 'stack the deck' so that processes designed to ensure that encyclopedic content is not deleted inappropriately are hamstrung is itself a user conduct issue worthy of committee scrutiny. When all is said and done, we are here to create, curate, and update an encyclopedia: the processes to do so, including safeguards against inappropriate deletions, are core functions of the encyclopedia. Those who advocate the dissolution of the ARS, even in light of the sanction on members done recently at ANI, are arguing against appropriate checks and balances on overzealous deletion, itself a WP:NOTHERE problem in extreme cases. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Reccomend decline per SmokeyJoe & Jclemens. From a short term view, there could be great value in revisting the ANI sanctions in a more deliberative fashion, which might lead to repeal. The counter balance to excessive deletion provided by Lightburst & the Colonel won't be easilly replaced. But realistically, even back at the squad's peak of power when we still had our resuce template, Benji, Ikip, & the rescue titan Anobody, the ARS was sitll only saving a fraction of threatened articles. With further weakened community checks to unneccessary deletion, we might finally see intervention from the only actor capable of harmonising our deletion operations with the generally more inclusive prefences of casual editors, donors and our wider readership. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

While I totally get why everyone is saying no right now, the above statement by Feyd Huxtable is a perfect example of why this will be back here again in the future. The battleground mentality that has permeated the ARS for over a decade has led to a Lost Cause of the Confederacy mentality from some participants, where people most of us agree were bad for the project, who have willfully violated many policies and acted in an extremely deceitful manner, were actually victims, saints practically, who were unfairly railroaded off the project by deletionist devils. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

At this point, what I'm going to say is fairly superfluous, but I might as well say it anyway. Declining it, for now, is the right way to go. Most likely, the only issues that would be in-scope for a case would be the conduct of the two editors from ARS who were discussed at ANI, but who were not sanctioned there, with "no consensus" results (and they would be the only potential named parties, besides the filing editor). At this point, then, it makes sense to see whether or not the warnings issued out of ANI suffice, and whether administrators are able to deal with any failures. But that still means "for now", as there is plenty of reason to be not-too-confident that the problems have been solved. (I said repeatedly at ANI that this would eventually need to be here at ArbCom, and I still think that's probable.)

By the way, let me also thank Wugapodes for making an excellent close of a difficult ANI discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shooterwalker

The ANI warnings/restrictions have the consensus of the community, and we ought to see how they play out before escalating to ArbCom. I haven't been much of a participant at AFD in recent times, and I didn't participate in the recent ANI. Lately, when someone abuses the process or acts in bad faith, my personal policy is to disengage. But I don't want my disengagement to be taken as consent for their bad behavior. I absolutely think the bad behavior at AFD is a problem, and I'm glad it's finally being addressed.

I can't speak on all editors sanctioned, but I can say that Andrew Davidson has been particularly childish when he doesn't get his way. Again, the issue isn't the right to disagree, but doing it in an WP:INCIVIL way, and that comments on the editor instead of the article. (This is to say nothing of misinterpreting Wikipedia standards after they have been patiently explained several times, or abusing processes such as WP:3RR / WP:ARS / WP:CANVASSing to try to subvert widely accepted standards.)

I want to thank Wugapodes for closing the ANI and not allowing the issue to fester any further. I'm tired of people deflecting blame as a way to avoid any kind of accountability. If there are other bad actors (on whichever "side"), then raise their conduct at ANI let's warn them or sanction them. The existence of other frustrating editors shouldn't give anyone a license to act with a self-centered and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. If there is a fundamental problem with the AFD process, we should fix AFD. If there is a fundamental problem with ARS, we should fix ARS. I say that as someone who sees the benefits of ARS and their article improvements, and I'd like to see more of that. I would like to think that if we remove the bad conduct from ARS, then the project will be able to spend more time performing its true function. I don't think the ANI remedies will resolve everything, but I'm hoping it moves things in the right direction, and becomes a template of how to reign in conduct issues, so that this doesn't have to go to ArbCom. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:力

The only plausible cause for a case would be Andrew Davidson appealing the topic ban imposed at ANI. I see two possible bases for appeal.

The WP:ANI thread was a kangaroo court rather than a civilized discussion; AND the community actually does not support a topic-ban.
The community does support a topic-ban, BUT imposing one is unfair for some reason.

I don't see either of those appeals going anywhere. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dronebogus

I don’t really know the point of this case, other than giving the ARS another outlet to justify their persecution complex. The community managed to hand one of the most disruptive members of the Squad a well-deserved ban, and that’s progress enough for now. Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Conduct in Articles for Deletion: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Conduct in Articles for Deletion: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

My preference would be to hold this request in abeyance while the ANI thread closes and while we wait to see while a resolution there is effective. This case request is likely to exhaust a substantial amount of community time to resolve (to say nothing of a full case), so I would very strongly prefer if arbitration doesn't turn out to be necessary. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline for now per my prior comment and for the reasons ably put by Thryduulf. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I were wiser I would just follow NYB's lead and say "I'm watching this." Because I have been watching this. As I write this Wugapodes is in the process of closing the ANI thread. That seems like a resolution, one way or another. Therefore, for anyone who thinks we should accept this case, I need to understand how the ANI mega-thread shows that "the community has been unable to resolve" this matter. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I have a lot of thoughts about this but I will keep it brief. Ultimately I don't see a request as being with-in ARBPOL at this time as the community has clearly gone to great effort to resolve this. As Thryduulf notes this is more of a not now rather than not ever and if it ever becomes ripe I would likely push to have this truly examine "Conduct in Articles for Deletion". Meaning to have editors that display similar behavior but end up pushing to delete, rather than merely those who push to keep, being party to the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread has now been closed, with some action taken to address the issues at hand, and I believe we owe it to those who invested their time into that discussion to wait and see what impact it will have. I am open to us getting involved in the future, particularly if there are still unresolved issues, but at this point in time, decline. – bradv^🍁 02:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I understand why Robert opened this request, and appreciate that he did so, giving a voice to the many at the thread who felt it had reached ArbCom's doorstep. Many thanks to Wug for closing one of the nastiest ANI threads of all time. I watched the development of the thread with bated breath. I believe we should give Wug's close a chance. It solves the immediate problem of contributor malfeasance, and sets out the next step: an RFC on deprecating ARS. Let's see if the community can come to a consensus before simply instituting an outcome, since if we handle it I have no doubt a major point of discussion will be if ArbCom should be disestablishmentarians (don't get to use that word much!). I decline this without prejudice: I very much suspect we'll be back, especially once Light Burst's topic ban is up. But it would be unfair to Light Burst to not give them a chance to reform their ways, or for a deprecation of ARS to be discussed. Then if issues continued or the deprecation RfC resulted in a "no consensus" we would have evidence that the issue truly is unsolvable, and ArbCom can step in to end it once and for all. Not accepting may have a positive effect for the time being, by providing a sword of Damocles. Perhaps AfD contributors might remember to control themselves and act in the spirit of Wikipedia, for they may find our solution to be bitter medicine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline largely per the sentiments expressed above. Like the others, I hold no prejudice against a re-filing further down the line if it turns out to be necessary. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, this is clearly one of the WP:BANEX cases (specifically, #2), though you are obviously welcome to participate as much or as little as desired. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off for a few more statements, but am leaning decline per my colleagues. A solution has been presented at ANI, we should see if it works. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Per my colleagues Worm^TT(talk) 09:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as the ANI has closed with some sanctions. Suggest to Robert that if he feels the ARS itself is problematic to the point it is a net negative, then to discuss it there or nominate it for deletion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline For all the heat generated by the ANI thread, there was genuine light in the idea of ARS members limiting their activity to actual article improvement, rather than voting. This seems like a healthy way forward and, I hope, an alternative to an eventual case. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline for now, as the ANI discussion didn't result in a total stalemate. Maxim_(talk) 16:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]