Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dream Focus (talk | contribs) |
→Evidence presented by User:EEng: removing comment that is not evidence. clerking action |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
===Inaccurate statements from the Delete side=== |
===Inaccurate statements from the Delete side=== |
||
Back in the portals case it seemed necessary to point out that assertions from the delete side [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=928610214 collapse under scrutiny]. This may be the case again here. At the request stage a ludicrous assertion was made that 13 & I are among those [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1093122720 "especially"] likely to be involved in ANI fights. ARS editors like 13 & me are good as gold. On average I post to ANI less than once a month. Im not perfect but no ones going to be able to pick out diffs proving I typically edit there with a battlefield mentality. Mostly I just plead for moderation & fairness, including quite often for deletion leaning editors if I see them at risk of a sanction that I feel would not be net +ve for the encyclopedia, e.g. as I did last year for [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1042988783 Mr Lambert] [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Back in the portals case it seemed necessary to point out that assertions from the delete side [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=928610214 collapse under scrutiny]. This may be the case again here. At the request stage a ludicrous assertion was made that 13 & I are among those [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1093122720 "especially"] likely to be involved in ANI fights. ARS editors like 13 & me are good as gold. On average I post to ANI less than once a month. Im not perfect but no ones going to be able to pick out diffs proving I typically edit there with a battlefield mentality. Mostly I just plead for moderation & fairness, including quite often for deletion leaning editors if I see them at risk of a sanction that I feel would not be net +ve for the encyclopedia, e.g. as I did last year for [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1042988783 Mr Lambert] [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
==Evidence presented by [[User:EEng]]== |
|||
*@{{U|FeydHuxtable}}, re "[[#Deletionistsare a thing]]": It's funny you say that, because what I always thought is that [[WP:ARS|the religious crusaders']] greatest trick was to convince the world that [[WP:Deletionists|the Devil]] ''does'' exist. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Evidence presented by Ritchie333== |
==Evidence presented by Ritchie333== |
||
Revision as of 19:49, 19 June 2022
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
 | The evidence phase has been extended one week to allow the submission of evidence (with diffs) about other editors who should be a party to this case. Otherwise-meritorious requests to add parties may be denied if submitted after the first week of the evidence phase. Please read this for more information on submitting evidence about a non-party editor. |
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
Submitting evidence
- Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
- You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
- Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
Word and diff limits
- The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
- If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
- Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.
Supporting assertions with evidence
- Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
- Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
Rebuttals
- The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
- Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.
Expected standards of behavior
- You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable
Deletionists are a thing
In this comment at the request stage, a normally excellent editor seemed to imply the word "deletionist" should only be used ironically. Baudelaire once wrote that the Devils greatest trick was to convince the world he doesn't exist, and it's possible Deletionists have managed a similar trick. Deletionists are real. They are relentless in their quest to cleanse and purge the encyclopaedia of all articles they dont like. Hence perhaps some of the meritless ANIs we see towards effective inclusionists who they might see as standing in their way.
Exoneration for 13
13 is unlike the other 3 parties, who are high volume editors. Whereas 13 only participates in about 5 or 6 AfDs per month. He's been mentioned in a few ANIs, but far less than the other 3 parties. The two most recent ANIs came closer to ending with a boomerang rather than a sanction for 13, especially the ANI earlier this month. The June ANI was focussed on conduct at this AdD where the filer made the ridiculous reply to 13 that "Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD" The ANI filer drew heavy criticism for this position, and to his credit didn't double down, instead retracting the view. 13 is to be commended for taking the time to improve articles at AfD. 13 isnt always word perfect, and it would be easy to cherry pic diffs making a case that he could benefit from a reminder. But while I argued against a boomerang for the last two editors who raised ANIs against 13, it would be absurd if their needless litigation is rewarded by seeing it lead to even a minor sanction like a caution for 13. Hopefully an exoneration is was what editor Ritchie333 had in mind when he said making 13 a party may stop getting things worse. (PS - none of this is to imply I see major problems with the other 3 editors - I don't)
Inaccurate statements from the Delete side
Back in the portals case it seemed necessary to point out that assertions from the delete side collapse under scrutiny. This may be the case again here. At the request stage a ludicrous assertion was made that 13 & I are among those "especially" likely to be involved in ANI fights. ARS editors like 13 & me are good as gold. On average I post to ANI less than once a month. Im not perfect but no ones going to be able to pick out diffs proving I typically edit there with a battlefield mentality. Mostly I just plead for moderation & fairness, including quite often for deletion leaning editors if I see them at risk of a sanction that I feel would not be net +ve for the encyclopedia, e.g. as I did last year for Mr Lambert FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Ritchie333
Johnpacklambert has an extensive log of sanctions, including two indefinite blocks
Looking at the block log:
- On 29 October 2015, Johnpacklambert was blocked indefinitely for serious violations of the biography of living persons policy on Jeanne Shaheen. The block was appealed successfully that November.
- On 9 March 2017, Johnpacklambert was "indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC
- On 25 August 2021, Johnpacklambert was again blocked indefinitely, which included disabling of their talk page for a week in order to cool off. The talk page was re-enabled following a discussion - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#Johnpacklambert
- On 16 September 2021, Johnpacklambert was "indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed." Note that I placed the topic ban, but as expected, did so by instruction of consensus of the community. On 7 December 2021, he was blocked for a week for violating this topic ban, which was reversed on appeal.
Johnpacklambert has regularly been complained about on noticeboards
- 15 June 2022 : Johnpacklambert's recent deletion discussions
- 28 December 2021 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban again - closed as "Block proposal is not supported at the time, so we let it go. I however would like to draw Johnpacklambert's attention to the fact that many users think this was a topic ban violation, and many users in good standing supported the block proposal. Next time, they might be in majority, and it is your direct interest to make sure that there is no next time."
- 14 April 2021 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert - closed as "Enough already. There is no consensus for sanctions, JPL has improved their voting and there is clearly going to be no tarring and feathering. In the meantime, this thread must be actively harmful to JPL and no longer serves a purpose. Some of the people contributing here should be taking a long hard look at themselves"
- 1 August 2020 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1043#Johnpacklambert and Prods - closed as "Boldly closing this. I have commented, so anyone should feel free to undo the close if they feel it's out of process, but JPL has agreed to take the feedback on board and act differently, the OP has indicated they are satisfied, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for anything else to happen. Back to work folks..."
- 1 September 2016 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive932#User:Johnpacklambert - closed as "There is clearly no consensus for any action to be taken against JPL and now the topic is veering off into policy discussion about notability, which does not belong here, so please take that to the appropriate venue. It's WP:CLOSINGTIME, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here"
- 13 May 2013 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Ban requested for User:Johnpacklambert - closed as "Obviously no consensus for a ban"
A common theme of these threads is that there is no obvious agreement or consensus on how to handle Johnpacklambert's behaviour Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by S Marshall
Thanks to the committee for granting me 1,500 words.
7&6=thirteen
I'm surprised and delighted to see 7&6=thirteen added as a party. Of the parties to this case he's the one I'm most concerned about.
Narrative: In link 1, from November 2021 I proposed that 7&6 should be topic banned from AfD. When I proposed this, I believed that 7&6 had fabricated page numbers and falsified a source so as to stop an article being deleted. I believed this because the deletion dispute was about Reginald V. Smith, and the source 7&6 cited (a) didn't mention Smith on or anywhere near the pages he cited, and (b) didn't contain the search string "Reginald". 7&6 couldn't explain this because he couldn't recall that specific discussion.
During the community discussion that followed, Suffusion of Yellow did some proper digging and found the problem. 7&6 had cited the page numbers from the wrong book. Mr Smith was in fact mentioned on pages 384, 512, and 514 of this book, not the book that 7&6 cited.
I still have a big problem with this, for the reasons that Deor gave during that AN/I discussion. Yes, Mr Smith is mentioned on those pages of the book, but no, the book does not support the specific claims that 7&6 attached to them. I don't offer specific diffs for this because I can't see the deleted content, so I must ask the committee to use their advanced permissions and check for themselves.
Wugapodes closed that discussion with no consensus for a formal sanction but a final warning for 7&6.
In link 2, which opened 8 days after the previous one was closed and stayed up for about two weeks, the community was unable to coalesce around a remedy.
Narrative: I believe that 7&6, an editor with 144,000 edits since 6th November 2007, has characterized these edits as "a mistake".
Evidence: Behaviour at AfD after Wugapodes' final warning: 1 (literally links a fandom page in an AfD and says "We have an obvious problem with Spanish language sources"); 2, passim but please particularly note comments by Vanamonde93 here and subsequently.
Ten Pound Hammer
Evidence:
- 1, 28 January 2018 topic ban from AfD
- 2, 4 August 2018 partial repeal
- 3, 6 October 2019 full repeal, with closer's note that
[T]he community seems unlikely to offer another chance after this.
Narrative: Please note the part in that third link where TPH says: 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 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 isuses that led to this ban in the first place.
Evidence: 1, start of discussion which is still open on AN/I right now.
Narrative: I fully endorse what Cunard says about TPH here, but please take particular note of the averages: 35 prods and 10 AfD nominations per day.
Evidence: Table of AfD nominations made by TPH starting 1 June 2022 (i.e. during that AN/I discussion).
Narrative: None of these AfD nominations is individually problematic. I present them here because, in the workshop phase, I will contend that TPH is overwhelming our deletion processes through sheer volume of nominations. Please note the far lower nomination rate during that AN/I discussion and the far higher accuracy being achieved relative to the preceding period. My case will be that this table shows TPH on his very best behaviour and it's the best we can expect from him without editing restrictions.
Evidence: Canvassing. 1, 2: "Obligatory ping of" to editors likely to !vote "delete", one of whom is of course another party to this case.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence: Finally I present an absence of evidence: the committee won't see many diffs about TPH between 4 August 2018 and 6 October 2019.
Narrative: In the workshop phase, I will contend that TPH is a pro-social, rules-compliant editor who can broadly follow editing restrictions. Others might say that TPH should be topic-banned from all deletion-related venues, so the point of an "absence of evidence" section is to challenge this.
Evidence presented by Cryptic
The collapsed table is maybe worth a skim, but I only talk about it in aggregate.
Table of afds started by Johnpacklambert in 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(As an aside, WP:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) and WP:Articles for deletion/Hans Riedl are of particular interest: Johnpacklambert had redirected the article; Lugnuts undid the redirects, prompting the afds; during which Lugnuts voted at least in part to redirect.)
Total afds: 103
98 afd are of pages in the 1898-1914 births categories. (I deliberately omit W. E. Lawrence or Denia Nixon, not because their 1896 and 1986 birth years are outside of this arbitrary-looking range, but because they're the only ones where the birth year is not getting monotonically earlier.) Of those, 83 were tagged stubs; among the other 15, I'd call 8 of them stub-length at the time of nomination despite being untagged (example).
So some 95% of Johnpacklambert's afds since the start of the year have clearly been from working backwards through the year-of-birth categories. Further, either 81% or 88% of the total are stubs, depending on whether only tagged ones are counted.
38 of the afds are of pages where Lugnuts had the first edit. All 38 were tagged stubs, and all except W. E. Lawrence were in the 1898-1914 birth year categories.
37 out of 98 pages, ignoring the outliers on both sides, being Lugnuts' creations seems like a lot at 38%. Here's the data on who created the stubs currently in those categories:
| Birth year | Total pages | # created by Lugnuts | % | raw data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1898 | 2220 | 326 | 14.7% | here |
| 1899 | 2169 | 353 | 16.3% | here |
| 1900 | 2298 | 403 | 17.5% | here |
| 1901 | 2271 | 390 | 17.2% | here |
| 1902 | 2353 | 422 | 17.9% | here |
| 1903 | 2392 | 413 | 17.3% | here |
| 1904 | 2391 | 441 | 18.4% | here |
| 1905 | 2421 | 395 | 16.3% | here |
| 1906 | 2481 | 392 | 15.8% | here |
| 1907 | 2497 | 409 | 16.4% | here |
| 1908 | 2591 | 422 | 16.3% | here |
| 1909 | 2563 | 433 | 16.9% | here |
| 1910 | 2573 | 422 | 16.4% | here |
| 1911 | 2613 | 397 | 15.2% | here |
| 1912 | 2774 | 472 | 17.0% | here |
| 1913 | 2734 | 452 | 16.5% | here |
| 1914 | 2778 | 446 | 16.1% | here |
| Total | 42119 | 6988 | 16.6% |
So, while Lugnuts is far and away the most prolific creator of stubs in these categories, and even though the numbers above won't include any pages that were deleted, redirected, or otherwise lost the stub tag by today, there's still significantly more afds of his articles than you'd expect.
Johnpacklambert's said repeatedly that he's been paying particular attention to Olympics-related stubs. That's less immediately obvious looking at the nominated articles' categories than the birth year categories are; still, 55 out of this set of afds are of pages in at least one category containing "Olympi". This includes all 37 of the pages Lugnuts created except (again) W. E. Lawrence.
So about 67% of the Olympics-related stubs in these birth year categories that Johnpacklambert nominated are Lugnuts creations. The overall data:
| Birth year | Total pages | # created by Lugnuts | % | raw data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1898 | 418 | 212 | 50.7% | here |
| 1899 | 433 | 214 | 49.4% | here |
| 1900 | 503 | 278 | 55.3% | here |
| 1901 | 510 | 262 | 51.4% | here |
| 1902 | 530 | 296 | 55.8% | here |
| 1903 | 487 | 283 | 58.1% | here |
| 1904 | 540 | 307 | 56.9% | here |
| 1905 | 518 | 263 | 50.8% | here |
| 1906 | 548 | 267 | 48.7% | here |
| 1907 | 524 | 265 | 50.6% | here |
| 1908 | 568 | 286 | 50.4% | here |
| 1909 | 555 | 279 | 50.3% | here |
| 1910 | 542 | 289 | 53.3% | here |
| 1911 | 546 | 262 | 48.0% | here |
| 1912 | 621 | 316 | 50.9% | here |
| 1913 | 591 | 314 | 53.1% | here |
| 1914 | 576 | 304 | 52.8% | here |
| Total | 9010 | 4697 | 52.1% |
Numbers in that table are, again, going to skew slightly low since it's existing stubs as of today, but not enough to make a difference. —Cryptic 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Aquillion
7&6=thirteen
- In discussions related to deletion, and especially anything related to ARS, 7&6=thirteen is constantly uncivil and engages in WP:ASPERSIONs and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
- I also want to point out this: [18] Saying that articles will be
disappeared
and the like, or grandiose statements like [19][20][21][22], are not as obvious as the above, but they contribute to a battlefield good-vs-evil mentality around AFD; and they show that 7&6=thirteen, in particular, approaches everything related to AFD from a battleground mentality.
Evidence presented by Beccaynr
7&6=thirteen has regularly been complained about on noticeboards
- 21 June 2019: Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen - closed as: "It's doubtful that anything good will result from leaving this thread open any longer."
- 2 August 2020: Aspersions at ARS - 7&6=thirteen listed as a party, archived without closure
- 23 February 2021: User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion - closed as: "There is consensus that the mergers and/or redirects by Mztourist at issue here, which concern articles about people after whom ships were named, were appropriate. 7&6=thirteen is warned to avoid personal attacks or other aggressive conduct towards fellow editors, or they may face sanctions. There is however no consensus to impose sanctions on 7&6=thirteen at this time."
- 31 October 2021: ARS Proposal #2: Topic ban for 7&6=thirteen - closed as: "No consensus for a formal sanction. The main proposal cites an alleged incident of 7&6=13 fabricating a source as its only justification, but subsequent discussion demonstrated that this was likely a good faith error where two sources got confused. Given that explanation and the lack of other evidence in the proposal editors were hesitant to implement a formal topic ban. However, editors raised concerns about the behavior of 7&6=13 unrelated to the alleged fabrication such as civility concerns and the quality of sourcing offered in general at AFD discussions. These were raised in individual comments and generally did not demonstrate sufficient consensus that a topic ban was an appropriate solution. While there is no consensus for a formal sanction, this discussion should serve as a sufficient, final warning. If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue using existing tools."
- 11 November 2021: 7&6=thirteen's behavior hasn't improved - closed 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."
- 11 June 2022: 7&6=thirteen's behavior *still* hasn't improved closed as: "I think that's quite enough bickering. However, it is clear that ANI is not the location that this type of disagreement can be solved, that location would be ArbCom, if anyone is brave enough to start a case."
Note: I used the string u|1=7&6=thirteen to search Noticeboards. Beccaynr (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by LaundryPizza03
In the discussion below, the user TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) will be abbreviated as "TPH".
TenPoundHammer nominates pages for deletion rapid-fire
- As counted by Cunard (talk · contribs) at the start of the ANI thread, TPH prodded 637 articles and opened 193 AfD's between May 12–30. At an average of one PROD every 43 minutes and one AfD every 2.4 hours, it is hard to believe that they have done WP:BEFORE for every page.
- At this WikiProject Television thread, I counted 146 articles prodded by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) on April 24, which were all deprodded by the user NemesisAT (talk · contribs) on April 30. (example: prod → deprod) NemesisAT was concerned that TPH had nominated far too many pages in a single day to have done BEFORE on all of them.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playbook (TV series): TPH claimed in the nomination that sports shows are less likely to get media attention. The user Artw (talk · contribs) objected that this nomination is utterly baseless; and that it contains a false claim, possibly what was amended here.
TenPoundHammer sometimes bludgeons AfD discussions they have initiated
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowznofski (2nd nomination): A very early example of this type of conduct at AfD. The nomination by TPH cited WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments in the previous AfD. They replied to a comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) with, Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator."
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking On Tyson: Repeatedly dismissing Associated Press, which wasn't even one of the sources in the article, as a press release agency; and complaining that a participant did not add the sources they found to the article.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged: Repeatedly rebutting every comment because none of them provide a reliable source that verifies the title. They assert that this article, about a supposed talk show hosted by Shep Messing, is a hoax.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperCars Exposed: Argued back and forth with other users because a large number of PRODs by TPH, including this one, were contested with no comment.
Other misconduct at AfD by TenPoundHammer
- At some of the "Lists of people on postage stamps" AfD's initiated by TPH, they consistently pinged the users Fram (talk · contribs) and Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) (examples 1, 2, 3), possibly because those users have also participated in other AfD's in the same series; Johnpacklambert !voted delete on all 3 of the aforementioned AfDs, and example of an AfD initiated by Fram.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkover (TV series): Inappropriate and involved non-admin closure by TPH, which was promptly overturned following this DRV, which deemed the closure inappropriate.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hablemos de Salud: Another involved NAC where TPH redirected the article because they had PRODded it while Matt91486 (talk · contribs) was in the process of merging to another article.
TenPoundHammer has been subject to ANI discussion on multiple occasions
- This ANI from 2010 is one of the earliest ANI threads about TPH. The initiator cited uncivil edit summaries such as calling a user a dumbass, as well as several questionable AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashable, which closed as snow keep.
- This ANI from July–August 2011 expressed concern about TPH repeatedly reinstanting a contested {{db-a7}} tag at an article, which was later deleted at AfD, because AFD will take too long and I feel so strongly that it's a slam-dunk A7.
- This RfC/U from March–May 2012 is one of the earlier threads specifically about their conduct at AfD. The closing admin noted: TenPoundHammer acknowledges that some of his nominations to AfD are problematic and will endeavor to make nominations more in line with current community consensus.
- The closing admin at this ANI from September 2012 cited misconduct by other users in ANI reports about TPH at AfD, but acknowledged that TPH was unpopular in the AfD community.
- TPH was topic banned from the deletion process at this ANI from January 2018, but the ban was modified in February 2018 and in September 2018, and was successfully appealed at this ANI from October 2019.
- TPH was blocked for one week at this March 2019 ANI due to uncivil comments. One of the examples cited by the initator was the edit summary then find sources, you fucking dipshit, directed at Jax 0677 (talk · contribs).
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Dream Focus
TenPoundHammer lies in edit summaries
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ArbCom?_2
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_lying_in_edit_summaries
Evidence of him lying in edit summaries. Others already mentioned the other things. Hopefully someone will take the time to look over the entire recent ANI as well. Dream Focus 19:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.