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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Fram[edit]

While the current ANI discussion linked above is about 2 editors, I decided to separate them into 2 ArbCom requests because the issues with both go back for many years, and very often aren't about both together but about their separate editing issues. Specifically for Lugnuts: he has a block log starting in 2010, with 2 blocks for personal attacks from this year[1]. He has 2 Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, one from 2021 and one from 2022. It is clear that the issues are recent and recurring. As an example of behavioural issues from this year: Lugnuts has a signature that causes Linter errors. This was raised in January, at User_talk:Lugnuts#Please take a moment to update your signature. Only after this was repeated in February, April and May did Lugnuts finally answer, to refuse this. At User_talk:Lugnuts#Signature from April 2022 he said he'll look into it after 2 other people asked him to, but nothing changed. Then at User_talk:Lugnuts#Your signature and lint errors another editor asked to change it, only to be met with "First, you didn't say please.". That editor then tried to clean up some of the Linter errors, but was reverted. The discussion with Lugnuts at User_talk:Lugnuts#note shows the patronizing, unhelpful attitude. This is in itself just a minor incident, but it shows that the problems that lead to blocks, or the other incivility in the current ANI thread (or the examples given there) are not confined to that thread or situation, but are happening way too often.

The issues with both their editing and their attitude have been going on for many years, and don't seem to get resolved by ANI discussions, so it is time for ArbCom to take a look and see what (if anything) needs to be done. Fram (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another example of Lugnuts' approach to respecting consensus and collaboration. In February 2022 he got an editing restriction on cosmetic edits, because he very often used these to be the "most recent" contributor; when someone changed a page he had created, he made very soon afterwards a "null" edit to be once again the most recent editor of that page. So what does he do now? He doesn't make null edits, he removes perfectly valid redlinks, again just to be the most recent editor. Examples from today: [2][3][4], ... Fram (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wugapodes. When you have editors with multiple editing restrictions and blocks, and still they get an ANI thread, and still the community can't really resolve this as opinions are clearly divided, then I (and at least some others) think it is ArbCom time. I mean, that's why we pay you, right? :-) And as the issues seem to be different for the two editors, and previous restrictions weren't caused by their interaction, and there are clearly active issues beyond their interaction, it seemed to me more logical to look at each individually, not just at the play between them. Yes, that will mean that some bits of evidence will be entered in both cases; but that also will mean that we don't get an artificially restricted scope where evidence of more general problems with these editors can't be discussed (e.g. Lugnuts' signature has nothing to do with AfD or his interaction with JPL, so bringing it up as evidence would be strange). Fram (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note that this is now the second time that Lugnuts has tried to scare me off with their supposed contacts with T&S. I have no idea what they are trying to achieve by corresponding with T&S about issues they don't seem to have tried to resolve at ANI or ArbCom first, it's not as if there is anything off-wiki or real-life involved in this. But it is yet another example of Lugnuts' manner of dealing with criticism. Arbcom seems set on restricting this to deletion-related behaviour: if accepted as that, I guess the other behavioural problems highlighted here will need to get an ANI discussion instead. Seems not to be the most efficient way to deal with this though. Fram (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the current ANI discussion linked above is about 2 editors, I decided to separate them into 2 ArbCom requests because the issues with both go back for many years, and very often aren't about both together but about their separate editing issues. Specifically for Johnpacklambert, he has a block log stretching back a decade, with infef blocks in 2015 and 2021 (and 2 other blocks in 2021)[5]. He has two Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, one from 2017, one from 2021. Despite all this, issues continue with a way too high frequence, as can be seen in the above linked discussions.

The issues with their editing (around deletion and in general) have been going on for many years, and don't seem to get resolved by ANI discussions, so it is time for ArbCom to take a look and see what (if anything) needs to be done. Fram (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Lugnuts[edit]

Hi. The changes to WP:NSPORT have been huge to WP, with the whole process of changing some, part, or all of it, going on for years. The RfC was a headache for all. I added a few comments on it, but didn't get dragged in to the minutiae or bludgeon the debate. Most of my work has been in this subject area, so naturally I have an interest in these changes, and the knock-on affect of work I've spent time on. The impact of the change has been meant opening the floodgates at AfD, with the assumption that someone who was notable x months ago is no longer notable in any form following the RfC, with deletion being the only outcome to some.

My last block was enacted after one admin read my comment of JPL not doing a WP:BEFORE as an aspersion. In the ongoing ANI thread, there are still concerns about JPL's before-work (or lack of). You can see in that section on my talkpage what other editors thought of that block, along with comments on their talkpage. That same admin was adamant to take me to ANI even though I answered their question. They then make multiple false claims (aspersions) about me in that ANI thread.

On the topic of JPL, it's incredible to believe they are NOT making an active attempt to target articles I've created. From the stats on my talkpage, 91 AfDs started this year, with 41 for pages I started. But they state "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion". If it was the other way round, would people believe I'm not targeting an individual? The two-way I-Ban was suggested and got some support for implementation, and would be something I would be happy with supporting. Infact, I think I did support that suggestion at the ANI thread. I think Star Mississippi suggested it first (apologies if I'm wrong here).

However, within FIVE days of the ANI thread being started, Fram suggests Arbcom before coming here a few days later, with the pretext of this not being possible to be solved by the community. This user has previously stated that "I have no beef with Lugnuts", which does not seem to be true. I have an emails to and from the Wikimedia Trust going back about 18 months with my concerns about their conduct towards me. Happy to share that with any Arbs in good standing, if needed.

Finally, Harry mentions something about automated editing. While I'm pretty sure he's not saying that my edits are automated, I just want to clarify that I've never used automation for any article creation on WP. Yes, I've created lots of articles, usually in batches, but everything I've ever done has been in line with the notabilty requirements at the time, and done manually. Times have moved on, and mass-creation is frowned upon, so I've accepted the restrictions on doing that. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Barkeep49 - Just sent. I marked it for your attention too if that helps. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continued harassment from JPL today. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For info: re Dlthewave's last comment - "Regarding Lugnuts specifically, we're continuing to see unfounded accusations such as ""Continued harassment from JPL today"" which was followed by them making this proposal at ANI, which has no support. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Johnpacklambert[edit]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This statement fails to really specify any specific current behavior that they want to change. It also brings up issues literally from a decade ago. I have been trying to abide by both of those limits, even though one of them was even admitted when it began that it was extremely broad. As a result of the most recent ANI I have made a decision to alter my process of bringing Proposed deletion and have been trying to be more sure that a Proposed Deletion is brought when reasonable. I have also backed off from calling forcefully for deletion still after a redirect is proposed. I have explained what is actually going on with the Olympic articles and that it is not specifically focused on a specific editor, and most other editors have recognized this is what is happening. That I have made mistakes in the past I freely acknowledge. I do not think this rises to the level of behavior that the Arbcom needs to review, and I do not think it makes sense to even bring up in 2022 something that happened in 2015. This unfairly focuses on a few problems and ignores the huge amount of good I have done in developing Wikipedia. It also ignores that starting last September I have tried very, very, very hard to be more congenial, to speak with others in a more balanced way, to seek for consensus, and to build Wikipedia by collaboration. Multiple other editors have thanked me for my contributions, have said that my way of interacting with others has greatly improved, and many other realted statements. I do not think this is a fair summary of my contributions, and I do not think such a high level request for review is merited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by S Marshall[edit]

Please will the committee accept a case called "Conduct at AfD", with Lugnuts, John Pack Lambert, and Ten Pound Hammer as parties.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (Later) Black Kite is certainly right to say that it'll develop into inclusionist/deletionist mudslinging. Separating the cases won't stop this happening. The triple-AN/I that's currently visible from orbit is bursting with exactly that mudslinging. If the committee takes this case, then the Arbcom case pages will serve as mud-containers for a while --- hugely to the benefit of the encyclopaedia. I know that there are big differences between the cases, but there are three key commonalities: positions at extreme ends of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum; prolific or borderline compulsive use or overuse of the venue; and behaviours which don't stop despite clear community consensus that they're unacceptable.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just a minor point about case titling: Not all the conduct we're asking you to consider took place in 2022. The matter of the linter errors created by Lugnuts' signature and his disregard of requests to change it is, I think, too simple to give you very much trouble. You could deal with that by summary motion or task the community to deal with it at AN/I. I don't think you need to reflect that issue in the case title even if you do choose to deal with it. I feel that the challenge for Arbcom is to unpick the behaviour in deletion disputes.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Barkeep requests evidence that TPH's behaviour in deletion-related discussions is a problem, so I present as sample discussions Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections (please note a common thread with the JPL and Lugnuts matter there: conflict around redirection-as-deletion), and all seven of TPH's requests for adminship. There are a number of other similar discussions with which I shall not bore you. These culminate in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer in which TPH is indefinitely banned from all deletion activities, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic ban appeal, part... II? III? MCVI? in which TPH's topic ban is lifted on the strength of his representation that I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations. I admit I've touched XFD less in general, but my interactions in that namespace have been a lot smoother. I have also shifted my focus toward article creation and improvement, as seen by the large number of good articles I've passed through since then. I think that my above-mentioned method of watchlisting articles or other content that I find suitable for deletion, and watching them for a period of time before determining whether or not to nominate, will help me take a more measured, uncontroversial approach to the issues that led to this ban in the first place.
    You will then want evidence that the community isn't able to deal with it ourselves. Please imagine me pointing at the AN/I thread in which the community can't coalesce around a remedy and then looking at you with one raised eyebrow.
    At issue here, with all three of TPH, JPL and Lugnuts, is low-level behaviour where no one individual smoking-gun diff gives grounds for a topic ban. In all three cases the behaviour is very, very prolific and uses up colossal quantities of volunteer time. All three have very high edit counts and are, to varying but appreciable degrees, popular users with supporters.
    Finally, I feel that we need your leadership here because of how the disputed behaviours interact with the proposed Universal Code of Conduct. This is a test case for the first limb of UCoC 3.3: The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation. Do the PRODs or redirections invoke this clause? How should we apply it in this case? If you do take this on, then when you make your findings, please would you be very clear and explicit on these points, because on Wikipedia, ad-hoc rulings meant to apply in one case take on the force of precedent, and go from cobweb to cable in about six months.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by FOARP[edit]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ARBCOM should accept cases related to Lugnuts and JPL individually, and should not be limited to the interactions of these two editors at AFD, as the issues in both cases extend way beyond this limited scope. Furthermore these issues are not only seen at AFD but more generally. Particularly in the case of Lugnuts we have seen a pattern of uncivil behaviour directed at many other editors (not just JPL) and not only at AFD going back multiple years. This conduct is something that blocks and warnings have simply failed to address (as is evidenced by Lugnut's long record of blocks and community sanctions) and for this reason ARBCOM is sadly the only forum that can consider it. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To re-iterate: the problem particularly with Lugnuts extends way beyond deletion discussions. Blocks and warnings have been deployed but short of an indef block (which admins have until now refused to apply given the fact that Lugnuts is essentially considered unblockable) nothing will change. Only arcom can resolve this. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add to what I said about re: Lugnuts, it is clear from a review of JPL's history - particularly reviewing the ANI cases they have been involved in and blocks brought against them - that their issues are not in any meaningful way related to interactions with Lugnuts per se. As such Lugnuts and JPL should be addressed in separate cases if ARBCOM wishes to take these cases up. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

Please don't merge the two cases, it'll just degenerate into another he said/he said mud-slinging fest (not to mention an inclusionist / deletionist one). And of course that means not including Ten Pound Hammer, either. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Although even if they're seperated, the statements by User:FOARP sort of give the issue away anyway (Lugnuts must be blocked / JPL is innocent). That's pretty much what you're going to get from editors like this. Good luck. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rhododendrites[edit]

[This is relevant to the JPL case, and a TPH case if it emerges, but just leaving it here to avoid duplication]:

There is no shortage of evidence that Lugnuts, JPL, and TPH have all been taken to ANI many times for behavioral issues related to the creation and/or deletion of low quality articles. There's no shortage of evidence that all three have taken up large amounts of time, and that the issues have long persisted. Where this request may fail is (a) figuring out a scope that avoids having a bunch of person-centered cases, and (b) that there have been various restrictions placed on all three AFAIK, so the argument that the community is unable to handle the problem is complicated.

I do think this is an extraordinary situation, though. The extent of polarization and partisanship through every thread about Lugnuts, JPL, or TPH has become overwhelming and impedes both discussion and outcomes. An arbcom case could help to cut through some of that. It's for the same reason that I disagree with Black Kite: they should be merged in part because they're all going to turn into polarized mud-slinging fests anyway, with most of the same people getting involved in all of them, so let's just have one rather than two or three.

Maybe a reasonable scope would be "behavior around mass created articles and deletion discussions". While mass creation doesn't look like it's a big part of the current ANI thread, it runs underneath it (and most of the discussions that deal with Lugnuts, or the various people contending with mass created articles, like JPL). The scale of creation, redirection, unredirection, proposed deletion, deprodding, and nominating for deletion is an exacerbating factor throughout, creating for various editors a sense of either urgency, time wasted, perceived hounding, carelessness, etc. To make things worse, we don't have great best practices for dealing with mass created articles (or for mass creating articles for that matter). ArbCom can't create those best practices, but it can look at what kinds of behaviors go over the lines we do have, and can assess whether the approaches by these three editors are helping or hindering efforts to improve the project in deletion-related areas. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Lugnuts)[edit]

ArbCom should open a single case on Conduct in Deletion Disputes.

There are currently three disputes open at WP:ANI with four principal parties involving conduct in deletion disputes. These cases are continuing to grow, and do not appear to be approaching any readiness for closure. Reasonable closure of these disputes will involve a detailed examination of the conduct of the parties, but that process is better suited for the quasi-judicial process of ArbCom than for community drama. I urge ArbCom to open a consolidated case involving conduct in deletion disputes. The current disputes involve User:Lugnuts, User:Johnpacklambert, User:TenPoundHammer, and User:Alansohn. All of those editors have previously been the subject of controversy, and I ask ArbCom to consider them all as cases that have not been resolved satisfactorily by the community, because the community is not well equipped to deal with long-term complex behavioral disputes and should not be expected to deal with them.

ArbCom should have three objectives in accepting this case:

  • 1. ArbCom should restate, and if necessary clarify, the long-standing policies and guidelines that apply to deletion discussions, including verifiability and notability, and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.
  • 2. ArbCom should review the conduct of the parties and determine whether they have violated these policies and guidelines, and impose appropriate restrictions.
  • 3. Because disputes about conduct in deletion discussions have been and continuing to be too common, ArbCom should develop an appropriate set of guidelines for ArbCom discretionary sanctions for editors whose conduct in deletion discussions (whether in starting too many of them or in disrupting them) has been disruptive.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long disputes about conduct by certain editors in deletion discussions happen every few months. Perhaps I have a minority opinion that the community is not the best forum to deal with complex conduct disputes with history going back years. My view is that conduct disputes involving extended review of history are better handled by a more deliberative process than the community drama boards. In these cases, I am asking ArbCom to do or delegate the dirty work of reviewing the history because the community should not be expected or required to do that. In areas where conduct disputes are too common, ArbCom has assigned the dirty work of reviewing the history to a corps of dedicated volunteer administrators at Arbitration Enforcement. Disputes about conduct in deletion discussions are sufficiently and unfortunately common enough that ArbCom should assign that dirty work to administrators who will take the time to review the history of any disruption and take appropriate action. The community does its best to handle these disputes, but the community is not really the best forum when Arbitration Enforcement can be made available.

If ArbCom accepts this case, I request permission to provide another 300 words. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by JoelleJay[edit]

I outlined my thoughts on this here (let me know if I should copy and paste to this section instead). I would support either separate or combined cases. I do think some of the straightforward civility issues can be dealt with by the community. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my statement in the Lugnuts request. I additionally would like to note that, while JPL continues to have issues nominating AfDs with insufficient BEFORE, and needs to do a much better job ensuring his PRODS are "uncontroversial", he does attempt to abide by his restrictions and improve his editing when called out. I think this is especially evident in his !votes at AfDs, which are in general much more fleshed-out and article-specific than they were just a couple years ago.

I would like to know if others here would be satisfied without taking on a case if @Johnpacklambert: agreed to 1) spell out his BEFORE searches and their results, and why the coverage isn't acceptable, for both AfDs and PRODs; 2) give redirecting MUCH more consideration; 3) limit how many replies/comments he posts in a discussion so he doesn't bludgeon it with the same arguments over and over. JoelleJay (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems misconduct at AfDs has to be tied to some degree of incivility before sanctions can ever be imposed on an editor. So we predictably get these perennial ANI reports that are only superficially on civility issues, immediately attract partisan support/opposition, meander around diff-heavy discussion offshoots with only tangential coherence with each other and the initial complaint, and eventually, at best, coalesce in weak support for some mild editing restriction for someone, often based more on the editor's behavior in the thread itself than on previously-identified "civility problems".
This could be prevented if AfD participation wasn't inexplicably considered an inalienable right and we actually enforced some standards. A lot of frustration arises from AfD participants never having any idea how particular !votes are weighted by closers, or to what degree policies and guidelines (or just policies?) trump numerical majority. This encourages many !voters (me included) to respond to each argument that is not P&G-compliant or that makes inaccurate claims with rebuttals, out of concern that a closer unfamiliar with the guidelines (and consensus interpretation thereof) in the area will be misled. I think editors on "both sides" are fed up with low-effort cookie-cutter !votes having the potential to sway numerical consensus -- and therefore make it harder to justify an argument-strength-based close -- especially when those !voters fail to engage when directly asked about their rationale. If the community largely disapproves of wasting editors' time by repeatedly and knowingly misrepresenting source acceptability; or regularly refusing to respond when sources are challenged; or routinely making false claims about what various P&Gs say; or making large numbers of identical !votes, especially in quick succession; then why do the editors that persist in these behaviors never even get warned? If such garbage !votes are actually ignored by closers (and they often don't seem to be, considering how many closes look to be decided by numbers and by the uproar that occurs when a close goes against the majority), why do we not ask these editors to improve their participation so they aren't big timesinks for everyone involved? JoelleJay (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ[edit]

To expand upon the issue of Lugnuts' signature mentioned by User:Fram, multiple users have been asking them to replace it for the last 5 years: 2021, 2019, 2017, 2018. Since 2017, a group of gnomes have been reaching out to users who had obsolete tags in their signatures and given them replacements. Nearly all of them have been helpful and changed it. It is just a one minute process. Lugnuts however has been pointily refusing to change their signature, forcing gnomes and bots to clean up after them. This is especially problematic when they comment at WP:RFPPI, which is transcluded in multiple templates, and in WP:DYK nomination pages, which are in template namespace. Templates with Lint errors affect a lot of pages, so Lint error reports in template namespace is watched by many template maintainers and Lugnuts' signature creates more work for them. Lugnuts has even editwarred with template maintainers who replace his signature. For a recent example, see this page history and this discussion. This is exactly the kind of long term disruptive and uncollaborative behaviour by Lugnuts in multiple areas of the project that has been repeatedly brought up. The difference is that when this happens in mainspace or in AFD, people escalate it to admin noticeboards, whereas gnomes and template maintainers quietly move on. I urge Arbcom to accept a case focused on Lugnuts since there are issues with their editing in multiple areas, not just at AFDs. --ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add that all the times that Lugnuts reverted users who replaced their signature, they were violating their editing restriction of Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Lugnuts is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page. Users who were replacing Lugnuts' signature likely weren't aware that they was under this restriction, hence didn't escalate. Arbcom should not restrict the scope to AFD and give an opportunity to present evidence of Lugnuts' disruption and violations of existing restrictions elsewhere. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by RoySmith[edit]

I'm not swayed by Fram's statement: The issues ... don't seem to get resolved by ANI discussions, so it is time for ArbCom to take a look. The community has the power to solve this by imposing various sorts of bans, which any admin can enforce by means of a block. I see a couple of ban proposals being discussed now. Both look likely to fail. I get the frustration with ongoing problem users, but if the community has chosen to not sanction them, asking arbcom to do so seems like it's in WP:OTHERPARENT territory, with a side of WP:UNBLOCKABLE. I'd prefer to see arbcom restrict themselves to cases which the community is intrinsically incapable of handling; admin misconduct, confidential off-wiki evidence, and the like. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that this is a combined case covering a broader topic, my original comment no longer seems applicable, so I've struck it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Folly Mox[edit]

On the signature issue alone, isn't it possible for a passing intadmin to like reach into Lugnuts's userspace and alter the signature to be lint-compliant or whatever, and mandate it remain so as an individual admin action? Totally uncertain if that's technically possible (not possible, per Izno below) and policy-compliant, but it doesn't seem like something eleven arbs need to weigh in on if it's genuinely causing work for people who for some reason care about deprecated tags in user signatures, like MalnadachBot's operator commenting above. People like me on mobile on dark mode already don't see font-faces and get inverted colours, but Some People Care.

On the merits of the case(s), what distinguishes our three protagonists Lugnuts JPL and TPH is the volume of their work. I believe what we're seeing are structural failings as the encyclopaedia's filtration mechanisms of AFD AFC and NPP begin to buckle under load, overburdened and understaffed, while the community has never held a convergent opinion on what the minimum requirements for a standalone article should be, and how to handle topics slightly beneath that minimum, while the real commercial value of having a standalone article continues to increase, and also at a point in time where a plurality of us do not know and have never known an encyclopaedia other than Wikipedia, and so have no reference for comparison. That's a knot of problems the committee is not mandated to fix. Folly Mox (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC) (edited 06:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Lugnuts:, @Star Mississippi:, here is that diff of the proposed two-way Iban. Folly Mox (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding DS for AfD, after some thought I have been unable to imagine anything feeling more kafkaesque to a new article creator than having their work brought before AfD, then receiving a DS template upon !voting to keep it. Folly Mox (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Hobit[edit]

I think it unlikely that the community will manage to solve any of these problems. And that's mostly because the actions of the three folks involved are largely not worthy of admin actions if they were coming in small quantities. But they aren't. In the quantities they are working in, they are quite disruptive. But people look at the individual things and say "this isn't horrible" or even "I agree with this" and can't grok that what's acceptable in small quantities gets disruptive when done in mass. On top of that, many of us look at these three and believe that most (all?) of them are quite capable of being solid net positives. They've all done good work at various times and they are generally responsive to limits placed on them. They just get obsessive and push things in an attempt to solve what they view as problems. Ideally some kind of restriction with a bright line on quality of work and fairly harsh penalty for crossing it would be employed. (BilledMammal proposed something like this at ANI but the line drawn wasn't as bright as I think would be needed given the personalities involved, especially wrt BEFORE). Other options include banning them all from deletion activities, placing tight restrictions on them in deletion discussions (and likely article creation), or just ignoring it all. But that last one is going to come back here with a high degree of certainty.

What I'm less sure of is if this should be 1, 2, or 3 cases. That's got to be up to those of you that are going to arbitrate it... All three options (and frankly even two different groups of 2) seem reasonable. I wish you luck on that one... Hobit (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Barkeep49: where do you want such diffs? The current case requests are about 2 specific editors. It feels odd to supply diffs about others here. Hobit (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I will note that at the start of WP:ANI#TenPoundHammer:_prods_and_AfDs lays out a case about TPH that's pretty darn well documented. Do you want that copied here or somewhere else? A case opened? Hobit (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      (FYI because of the various issues your ping didn't go through though obviously I'm still seeing this) Yeah that's a really fair question. As you've probably seen I think these things should be merged and so I'm going to say here but fair point that we as arbs need to give some structure for you to do these things. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

I believe Conduct at deletion discussions would narrow the scope too much - it would exclude most behaviour around prods and redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mhawk10: I think it would. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add to what dlthewave said, John Pack Lamberts rate of nominating Lugnuts articles for deletion is not harassment or evidence of hounding. I looked at two random selections of 50 low importance, stub articles on Olympians. The first group, from Adolf Waser to Adone Stellin contained 35 articles written by Lugnuts. The second, from Giulia Perelli (tennis) to Giuseppe Chiantia, contained 28 articles written by Lugnuts.

In this context, the frequency at which John nominates articles created by Lugnuts is reasonable, and suggests that they are nominating articles without considering who the creator is. BilledMammal (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave[edit]

ArbCom should open a case on deletion disputes broadly construed to include AfD, PROD, redirects etc. I agree with the basic framework proposed by Robert McClenon: 1) restate the relevant policies, 2) review individual user conduct and 3) enact dicretionary sanctions.

A core issue is that community members interpret our policies surrounding mass article creation, stubs, deletion and burden of proof/WP:BEFORE in conflicting ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether editors' activities are productive or disruptive. Setting clear standards and implementing a process for those don't follow those standards would significantly reduce the unproductive back-and-forth that we've been seeing when Lugnuts' (and others') clearly disruptive behavior is brought to ANI.

Although this wouldn't cover the full scope of Lugnuts' civility breaches, I think that a deletion/notability case is a necessary step toward addressing the overall conflict in this area. Best to stick with a single case for now and consider a Lugnuts-specific case if this doesn't address the problem. –dlthewave 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Lugnuts specifically, we're continuing to see unfounded accusations such as "Continued harassment from JPL today" [6], which as far as I can tell is simply an AfD nom of an article which Lugnuts created that is somehow being construed as targeted harassment. –dlthewave 18:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ingratis[edit]

In their hugely different ways both Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are productive editors despite their less desirable behaviours, and neither of them is a net negative (although JPL often seems determined to make himself look like one). Both have disciplinary histories, but in normal circumstances the problems could still be dealt with by ordinary measures: there are various combination of bans that could still be tried, and so forth. However, the background here is the continuing war of attrition between deletion and inclusion in certain areas, at the moment especially sports, which is independent of these two but has brought their always jagged relationship into unusual focus. Other editors have already commented on the noticeable anti-Lugnuts / pro-JPL lobbying on this page, which is symptomatic. If this does go forward, a combined case would be better suited to take account of the common ground underlying it, and an important concern would have to be, in the present vicious climate, that one or both should not be held liable / penalised for stronger undercurrents for which they're not particularly responsible. However, (AFAIK) ArbCom can't resolve the deletion / inclusion polarisation, which is where the real problem lies, so perhaps this is even now best left to further community sanctions. Ingratis (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Mhawk10[edit]

@BilledMammal: the WP:Deletion policy covers blanking and redirection. Would Conduct relating to article deletion work better for you? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of curiosity, what number of arbitrators is required for a motion to pass? I see 14 arbitrators listed as active on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members and there are 8 votes to accept the case. Is greater than a simple majority required for the motion to carry? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CaptainEek: Thank you for providing clarity; the delay makes sense. I'm honestly nowhere near well-versed enough on the history of this sort of thing to start asking that certain people be named parties to the case. One thing that I'd suggest, though: can the case be titled Conduct in deletion discussions? It seems like the scope of the case is greater than a single deletion discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

(I'm just gonna make one comment here although this applies to both currently-open case requests.) I was going to put together a list of ANI threads about editors' behavior in deletion discussions, but I quickly realized that would take too long. So I did this fun exercise instead:

  • Go to WP:ANI and search on the page (CTRL+F or CMD+F) for "AFD". I get 458 hits. That's a bit of a fluke, and why we're here now: there are at least five separate AFD threads at ANI right now. But then:
  • Archive 1100: 28 hits for "AFD"
  • Archive 1099: 54 hits
  • Archive 1098: 69 hits
  • Archive 1097: 26 hits
  • Archive 1096: 88 hits (we're back to April 2022 at this point)

There does not appear to be any page of ANI archives that don't have at least one thread about AFD. That's a measure of how often AFD problems are discussed at ANI: it looks like more than ten threads just from the past couple of months! (I tried doing the same with "CSD", "UPE", "COI", and got far lower numbers, and some of those were false positives like "super" and "coincidence").

Authorizing discretionary sanctions for "deletion" would allow admins to issue sanctions like topic bans without needing to get consensus at ANI. This, in theory, is what DS is for: to save the community from having to review an AFD issue at ANI twice a week by empowering admins to make unilateral decisions. Authorizing DS for deletion could be done by motion, and might be a way of improving the situation short of a full case. But I'm not sure if we have any admins who would be interested in enforcing this new DS, so maybe merely authorizing DS would be ineffective, and a full case should be held. Levivich 21:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Harry Mitchell[edit]

I commend Hobit's statement above. As Hobit suggests, the problems here are not any one individual action or edit but a pattern of thousands or tens of thousands of edits across the encyclopaedia and internal processes like AfD. Both JPL and Lugnuts have strong track records of improvements to the encyclopaedia but, similar to some of the cases involving automation, also have a track record of doing things in very large volumes. While any one edit may not be problematic, or not sufficiently problematic as to be actionable, the volume of edits itself becomes disruptive (for example creating very large numbers of articles at short intervals, or nominating large numbers of articles for deletion without doing the prerequisite checking). It is well known that the community struggles to deal with patterns of low-level disruptive edits over a prolonged period, and with good-faith contributors whose contributions are largely positive but sometimes (possibly inadvertently) disruptive (there are echoes here of some of the cases involving automated editing, eg Betacommand and Rich Farmbrough). Thus, I believe the structure of a case is the only way to effectively examine the conduct of these two editors and preferably find a way that they continue to make positive contributions without derailing discussions or draining the community's resources. A broader examination of AfD, mass creation of articles, and related processes, possibly with a scope broader than these two individuals, is also overdue. I'm not sure I'd support something as broad as discretionary sanctions across AfD, but a workshop could allow for proposals to be made and refined in a more structured environment than ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll[edit]

Issues concerning deletion discussions are difficult to resolve by consensus because of the highly partisan nature of the discussions, e.g. as described in Rhododendrite's comment here or as evident in this newer discussion. A case that addressed this issue effectively would have to consider many more editors than just the three mentioned here. -JBL (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Wugapodes: Thanks for the ping. My response is necessarily off-the-cuff -- I don't spend much time thinking about these things and certainly don't keep records, so it's just going by memory plus browsing the past few months of ANI. (I realize this may mean it's not very helpful for your purposes, so apologies for that; and apologies in advance to anyone who feels I have wrongly listed them here.)
    There are a zillion editors identified as members of ARS, but only a handful of them seem to routinely recur in fights at ANI, especially 7&6=thirteen and FeydHuxtable. (In the past I would have included Colonel Warden/Andrew Davidson and Lightburst, but previous sanctions appear to have dealt effectively with their disruption, eventually.) Other editors who have been the locus of major recent disputes include Nfitz and No Great Shaker. Maybe NemesisAT. DreamFocus seems to reliably pop up to defend bad behavior by other ARS members at ANI but I don't object to their behavior at AfD. There's a whole group of sports editors whose behavior at AfD is dreadful but I don't keep track of them because I don't edit sports very much. On the "other side", obviously JPL and TPH are both frequently to be found at ANI; I was going to mention Adamant1 but I see they were topic-banned a couple months ago. (The "deletionist side" is less organized, which makes identifying its "members" more complicated -- but also they are less likely to defend obviously poor behavior, as evidenced by the !votes in the Adamant1 ban discussion.)
    I think that some comments above about volume are correct: e.g., my own behavior at AfD is not exemplary, but because I don't participate in very many deletion discussions, I'm not harming the broader environment, and I don't end up at ANI about it repeatedly. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One final note on the brigading effect, and how poisonous it is: here we have one editor referring to their colleagues as Quislings at the ARS noticeboard, and then an ARS member chiming in to ... attack the messenger for presuming to associate that bad behavior with ARS. I would urge the arbs to consider construing the problem (and solutions) in a way that is responsive to this kind of thing. JBL (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333[edit]

I share Barkeep's view here. Although not directly related to this request, when I see an admin close a thread as "This is all a horrible time sink and it's clear that the community can't determine an outcome. I suggest that the next time someone feels the urge to take an ARS-related matter here, they (a) hold their peace or (b) let their gaze fall upon Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests", then it suggests that some sort of arbitration is required. I'm just not sure what, or to whom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moneytrees I think there would need to be hard evidence ie: multiple ANI threads resulting in no consensus, to add any further parties, with the possible exception of TenPoundHammer. I would oppose adding any of the Article Rescue Squadron members simply because action was taken against them at ANI with multiple topic bans, indicating it is a problem the community can handle.

As an example of a general problem at AfD, there are a number of "List of people on the postage stamps of [country]" AfDs doing the rounds at the moment. I have hatted one discussion and clerked another (though I note RandomCanadian does not think replying to an AfD comment with "bollocks" is problematic). However, I don't think any of the other participants have been involved in a community discussion where consensus cannot be reached, therefore this issue is not ripe for arbitration. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if the arbs might consider 7&6=thirteen as a party to the case, simply because they were name-checked in the thread I mentioned above, and also because there is a thread about them active on ANI right now that seems to be going nowhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Floquenbeam I think that's a good point. I have given 7&6=thirteen a note on their talk page, emphasising that they should be free to come here and give their own views and defence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have some questions for those accepting/considering accepting: is this going to become a broad case on behavior at AfD (eg not just Lugnuts and JPL), or does more evidence need to be presented to make it a broader case? Or is this just a case overlooking the histories of Lugnuts and JPL and is not confined to their activities at AfD? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Atsme[edit] DS. If we're talking about auto stub creation, redirects being removed, and inadequate sourcing, then we're getting into the work of NPP, autopatrolled rights, and AfC. JoelleJay made some good points, as did Roy Smith. I'm of the mind that some temporary restrictions will resolve these issues, as will some unambiguous updates to our current PAGs and the timely enforcement of them. Atsme 💬 📧 22:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My statement in Lugnuts case applies equally here. No DS, fix the ambiguity in the PAGs, and enforce them...supporting the work of NPP and AfC, and temporarily removing autopatrolled rights will also help. The onus for creating articles without RS is on the article creator. Allow reviewers to do their job, and either kick it to draft, PROD it or CSD it - that will wipe out the problem faster than you think. Atsme 💬 📧 22:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi[edit]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree with @Robert McClenon: that this is probably a deletion conduct case rather than a John Pack Lambert, Lugnuts, Ten Pound Hammer case, I quote from @Floquenbeam:'s close here: However, this is becoming too chaotic to continue having a productive discussion; emotions are high. If arbs are less inclined to take on one or the other named cases, I think JPL's is the most ripe because this is an intractable problem with varied groups. Not just Lugnuts or any other person with whom they disagree on a topic. Disclosure, I proposed the aforementioned topic ban. Star Mississippi 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just confirming here what @Lugnuts said in their case above in the event it's needed. I did suggest the two way ban Lugnuts referenced. I cannot find the diff given the large discussions that ate AN:I but it's live in the first section. Happy to provide additional info as needed Star Mississippi 20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

From JPL case request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I agree with FOARP; the intersection between any case on Lugnuts, and any case of John Pack Lambert, is going to be minimal. In addition, I am not certain that there should be a case on John Pack Lambert; ArbCom is here to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.

In the case of John Pack Lambert, there have been no issues that the community has been unable to resolve; in the discussions linked by Fram it was able to address and resolve the issues raised. This most recent discussion didn't go as well, but that is due to the nature of it; it started as a discussion on Lugnuts, but John was unfortunate enough to be drawn into the discussion without a clear definition of what the issue with John is, or how that issue relates to Lugnuts.

I see no reason to believe that a discussion at ANI considering only John, and with a clear scope, would fail to produce a consensus in one direction or the other. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe[edit]

If this case is accepted and becomes about AfD in general, rather than just the editors named here, I think it's really important that the committee proactively invite comment from a broader range of editors before the draft decision. AfD is a busy area of the project and a lot of people with a stake in it aren't going to be following this case because, honestly, after you've been there long enough the words "Johnpacklambert" and "Lugnuts" cause you to compulsively roll your eyes and stop paying attention. I'd hate to see the conduct of a small number of editors end up blowing back on AfD as a whole, which most of the time is one of the best functioning processes we have. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Barkeep49: Yeah, if the case is going to go from just focusing on a few named editors to reflecting on the whole process (as some others here and some arbs have suggested), then I think at least a courtesy notification at places like WT:AFD would be appreciated. If you end up considering DS on the entire deletion 'topic', for example, I think there really needs to be consultation with a broad spectrum of editors and admins active in deletion, not just those who happen to be interested in what happens to JPL/Lugnuts/TPH or have ARC watchlisted. Of course if you don't go with that expanded scope, then it doesn't matter. – Joe (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by CT55555[edit]

I check and participate at AfD most days, I spend more time arguing to keep than delete, but vote both ways. This is my first comment at ArbCom and my comments at ANI on this same topic were I think my first ANI comments too, I’m new to this process, I’ve deliberately avoided making this submission about individual people or discussions, as I think the topic is wider than people named above, even if they are the clearest examples.

My perception is that at AfD in recent weeks and months the workload has increased, and that a small number of editors are putting high volumes of similar articles up for discussion. It seems that some editors are quick to propose deletion, and less enthused to improve articles, with small group of editors also quick to agree that subjects are not notable, avoid any discussion about merge options and quickly conclude that only deletion is possible. I fear that votes are cast based on the sources in the article, rather than any searches to establish notability.

I probably have blind spots, because I’ve seen people comment on the opposite phenomenon whereby the feel like others will argue to keep everything. I am skeptical of anyone who votes 99%+ one way or the other, and of people who never change their vote during discussions.

As many proposed articles/list to delete are thematically grouped, I assume editors are working their way through categories and removing what doesn’t meet their perceptions of standards, I can assume a good faith effort to maintain standards.

Sadly, it seems in their haste and gusto, the full range of checks detailed at WP:BEFORE appear to be sometimes missed. Sometimes, I find myself finding sources that prove notability, but by the time I have done so, 1, 2, 3 or 4 people have very quickly concluded that the subject is not notable. Some editors appear to vote delete almost always and seem unwilling to update their analysis as new information comes to light. I fear the deletion of good content is happening in haste and am working hard to demonstrate the notability of the best ones. I wish those proposing to delete large numbers of articles would do more thorough searches. Editors who straddle the intersection of proposing many articles per day who don’t find good sources that exist, and who refuse to change their mind when notability is demonstrated are, in my opinion, creating a problem. I wish we could incentivise people to check for sources before proposing to delete and forcible slow down those who fail to do so. CT55555 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

Two general and related observations:

  • WP:FAIT needs to be considered here. The mass deletion of a large number of articles without prior community consensus is absolutely a FAIT situation.
  • That said, taking the change to NSPORT where it was clear many many article would likely end up in deletion or other similar processes, the was no point in the discussion to determine the process to use post RFC. It really should be obvious that when the community makes a decision via RFC that impacts a large number of articles, and the remedy us not something that can be done by bots, there really needs to be a post RFX discussion of how to implement the change. Do we give editors a reasonable period of time before mass deletion starts? Do we Grandfather in older article? Establishing that right at the end of the RFC would avoid some of the mess that happened in this case. --Masem (t) 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Vaulter[edit]

It should be noted a new ANI thread has been opened concerning JPL today. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Johnpacklambert's_recent_deletion_discussions. -- Vaulter 16:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra[edit]

  • On seeing Lugnuts post, I wondered if the simplest solution would be to require JPL to stop nominating Lugnuts articles for deletion and to stop commenting on them at AfD? SMDH. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Jclemens[edit]

To add a bit that others haven't necessarily said above:

1. Our deletion processes work pretty well when applied by reasonable editors reasonably. These aren't those editors.

2. The linchpin of the inclusionist/deletionist debate is that everyone wants someone else to do the work of improving articles: all reasonable editors agree it needs to be done, but no one wants to do it. The deletionist approach is to delete unimproved articles that don't pass muster regardless of their potential, while the inclusionist approach prefers to allow imperfect work to wait for a unicorn to come along and improve it. Everyone wants an encyclopedia full of good articles, but good faith contributors differ on how to get there. Extremists on either side muddle the process.

3. The Committee should consider appointing respected community members to oversee a binding RFC as a way to solve how we can get along with the philosophical disconnect of #2... or at the very least, how to make sure particularly enthusiastically one-sided editors, supported by one "side," are not allowed to derail what should be collegial and reader-focused discussions. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Mangoe[edit]

I was something of a bystander to this until (a) it turned into a general behavioral discussion, and (b) I stumbled upon a Lugnuts/JPL interaction while reviewing today's discussions. As a fairly active AfD submitter I feel I have an interest in the former, but I do not see how ARBCOM can overcome the fundamental problem of reviewing the results of mass stub creation. The people created them often take offense and are unwilling to help clean-up; those doing the latter are engaged in an Augean task for which they take a great deal of flack and often resistance on principle. I just do not see a solution to this as a behavioral issue; the community needs to discuss, as a whole, how to deal with these stubs, and as a procedural matter I don't see this as in ARBCOM's purview. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by LaundryPizza03[edit]

Now that the two case requests have been merged, I can comment on the ANI reports about TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) and Alansohn (talk · contribs).

Alansohn was banned from interacting with Rusf10 (talk · contribs) in 2018, except in AfD discussions started by Rusf10 where they are the creator or primary contributor, per a lengthy ANI dispute. Since then, Alansohn has violated this IBAN several times at AfD. At the recent ANI thread about these chronic violations, Alansohn denies that the IBAN is necessary and considers it to be a net negative. Other editors have criticized Alansohn's conduct in the case at hand, where they !voted at AfDs initiated by Rusf10 where they are not the creator or primary contributor.

TenPoundHammer (TPH) was topic banned from AfD in 2018, but this was successfully appealed at ANI in 2019 with a warning that there would be no second chances. Their current ANI concerns filing hundreds of AfD and PROD nominations over the past month, mostly articles about TV shows and the Lists of people on postage stamps. All of the latter that thave been brought to AfD or PROD have been deleted, but ANI initiator Cunard (talk · contribs) has questioned the accuracy of TPH's rationales regarding TV shows. TPH has ignored complaints from users about the speed at which they are PRODding new articles, and I have separately documented a case at WPTV where they PRODded 146 TV show articles in one day, and they were all deprodded by NemesisAT (talk · contribs).

Users at TPH's ANI have also cited canvassing at some of the postage stamp AfDs, and additionally noted an inappropriate non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkover (TV series) and bludgeoning of other editors at several AfDs they initiated. At present, there is a significant backlog of AfD nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television, where some of TPH's AfDs have attracted minimal participation despite two relists. About half of the most recent AfDs initiated by TPH have closed as delete or redirect.

Both ANI discussions, as well as those concerning Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) and Lugnuts (talk · contribs), are attracting numerous unpopular, sometimes heavy-handed proposals, and participants have not agreed on a single resolution to any of them. Due to relevance and lack of space under the 500-word limit, I cannot make any remarks about prior cases involving other users, but there are several interesting ones where users were banned from XfD by the community. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Floq[edit]

I note several people are suggesting adding other editors as parties, particularly TPH and 7+6. I would think the respectful thing to do if you do that is to notify them, but I don't see such notification on their talk pages. I wouldn't think pinging them is sufficient. Am I just missing these notifications somewhere? I imagine they're aware this case request exists, but it's conceivable they don't know they're at risk of being added as parties. IS this something the clerks should do? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting that Ritchie notified 7&6, and I've just notified TPH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by North8000[edit]

There's a mis-impression that the NSPORTS change raised the notability bar regarding "professional participation only". Since sports coverage is itself an entertainment form, it exists indiscriminately for these affected by the "change" so it's easy to claim GNG for all of these. So the intended "change" that wasn't really a change appears to be a trigger for much of this, which could make this complicated for Arbcom.North8000 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Purplebackpack89[edit]

I think adding additional people to this dispute, particularly those like TPH who engender gut negative reactions from many community, obscures the crux of the dispute. We should instead focus on the behavior of the original editors tagged, particularly Johnpacklambert. Johnpacklambert has a very LONG history of making high-volume edits to categories and AfDs, and the volume of his edits have either resulted in carelessness and/or ignorance of community consensus. He also has a pretty well-documented history of not getting along with other editors. If JPL is to be allowed to continue on this project, it needs to be under very strict restrictions. He may need to be banned from AfD and category-space altogether. He probably also needs some sort of cap on the number of edits he's allowed to make during a 24-hour period. We can't excuse his behavior simply by saying "but Lugnuts..." or "But TPH...". pbp 23:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

I suggest accepting with a broad case not just limited to the specific named parties, or even to conduct at AFD, but to conduct related to AFD, and especially WP:BATTLEGROUND "inclusionist vs. deletionist" conduct. In the linked ANI in particular there are a lot of comments where people clearly make uncivil or clearly non-WP:AGF remarks about essentially all editors they perceive as being on the "other side" when it comes to deletion (see eg. [7]... or search the discussion for people using "inclusionist" or "deletionist" unironically.) More than any specific dispute or any individual specific misconduct, that's the sort of thing that needs to be nipped in the bud to keep this from spiraling further out of control. And it's something the community has clearly been unable to handle, partially because it's such a longstanding flashpoint; every discussion just seems to make it worse instead of resolving anything. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some examples, given the request for more diffs below to indicate that this is a broader problem:

  • [8] (And the entire thread leading up to it, both sides.)
  • [9] I get the impression that there are mamy people who would prefer it if we didn't have any articles, so they could argue to their heart's content without those pesky things getting in the way.
  • [10][11][12][13]

I'm not saying that any of these people should necessarily be a specific party, but a lot of these comments are just... pouring oil on troubled fires, so to speak. Given the history here it is particularly important to AGF and avoid battleground conduct when it comes to broad comments about deletion disputes; and that same history makes it hard for the community to enforce that, so it falls on ArbCom to do so somehow. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

  • Comment - Arbs, please note. On his Facebook, John Pack Lambert, a real name account, has requested that he be referred to as "Mr. Lambert" rather than reduced to an acronym he does not like. He regards it as a matter of courtesy. I pass this along for your information. Carrite (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]