Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
S Marshall (talk | contribs) More |
→7&6=thirteen (GreenC): collapsing ARS digression |
||
| Line 869: | Line 869: | ||
===TPH has been warned of blundgeon-y behavior=== |
===TPH has been warned of blundgeon-y behavior=== |
||
In addition to the case mentioned above, another recent example is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Promise That Remains]], where TPH quoted a guideline in the nomination and then repeated that quotation in replies, using escalating emphasis and font size. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
In addition to the case mentioned above, another recent example is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Promise That Remains]], where TPH quoted a guideline in the nomination and then repeated that quotation in replies, using escalating emphasis and font size. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
==Evidence presented by GreenC== |
|||
===7&6=thirteen (GreenC)=== |
|||
This ArbCom began as an examination of three users whose actions might be harming Wikipedia ''at large scale''. Good! It was later expanded to include 7&6. They are two separate issues. |
|||
The case against 7&6 is being evidenced by many of the same who tried to sanction him at ANI in [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083&oldid=1073177252#ARS_Proposal_#2:_Topic_ban_for_7&6=thirteen October] and [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085&oldid=1079615352#7&6=thirteen%E2%80%99s_behavior_hasn%E2%80%99t_improved November], but failed because 7&6 has the support of many members of the community, and the evidence was never strong, they closed without sanction. User:S Marshall [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083&oldid=1073177252#ARS_Proposal_#2:_Topic_ban_for_7&6=thirteen earlier accused 7&6] for things he did not do (closed: "likely a good faith error"). User:S Marshall now says he takes "delight" in seeing 7&6 at ArbCom ([[Special:Diff/1093739354/1093743304]]). |
|||
Since 1 January 2022, 7&6 has been involved in only 29 AfDs or about 1 ''per week'': |
|||
{{collapse begin|title=AfDs involving 7&6 January to June 2022}} |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots (2nd nomination)]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of street lighting in the United States]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of production battery electric vehicles]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy's Milk Bar]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interim (2nd nomination)]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts by duration]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muturi]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Tintant]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismene (moth)]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Spinosa]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Tinney]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wants (band)]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kubi gold mine]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Flag]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical constants by continued fraction representation]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States cities by area]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit in or fuck off]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian provinces and territories by area]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My way or the highway]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacquotte Delahaye]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the largest counties in the United States by area]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sillman]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Weiner]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Advisor (Poland)]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of garden plants]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Marsh (writer) (2nd nomination)]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States]] |
|||
{{collapse end}} |
|||
Source: [https://github.com/greencardamom/Wikiget wikiget] -u "7&6=thirteen" -s 20220101 -e 20220625 -n 4 | grep 'for deletion' |
|||
{{ctop|ARS evidence}} |
|||
User:EEng has been an inveterate cynical commentator about ARS for years. For example during this ArbCom evidence phase he called ARS a "religion" ([[Special:Diff/1093919940/1093931066]]), which implies blind faith and not objective decisions. Casting aspersions like this against ARS whole-cloth is common by a minority of editors. This [[Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#There_is_an_ongoing_discussion_about_AFDs|thread at ARS]] says it all, where he jokingly says he remains "subtle" about long running personal feuds ([[Special:Diff/1093594879/1093594962]]), though he originally said "I hide it well" ([[Special:Diff/1093594285/1093594879]]). |
|||
There have been 10 attempts to close down ARS over the years and consistently the community has supported the project: listed at top [[Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron]]. |
|||
There has long been direct evidence of [[Dog whistle (politics)|anti-ARS dog whistling]] at [[Wikipediocracy]], for example most recently related to this ongoing ArbCom case: [https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12639&p=311773&hilit=7%266%3Dthirteen#p311773] ("the old-school ARSehole Brigade still left"). It is a constant thing at Wikipediocracy, with people disparaging ARS and its members whenever there is an ANI or contentious AfD, ARS has been a target of some of the most viscous ex-users of our community. |
|||
{{cbot}} |
|||
I picked two users, as examples, due to space constraint, though I make no accusations of off-site activity by users here in good standing. Look, this case is strongest against the original three users: the question is if they are doing the right thing for Wikipedia ''at large scale''. This is the evidence ArbCom should focus on. The case of 7&6 involves some trivial involved-editor personal grudges have spilled into ArbCom with little scale impact. |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
||
Revision as of 21:18, 22 June 2022
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. Deletionists are real. Using afdstats its easy to find editors who vote Delete over 90% of the time. Having different people embody contrary principles can be a helpful opposition like finger & thumb, Defence v Prosecutor , red team/blue team etc. But it does risk friction which can cause deletionists to see their opposites as problematic for no good reason.
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 (S Marshall)
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 7&6 should be topic banned from AfD. When I proposed this, I believed 7&6 had fabricated page numbers and falsified a source to stop an article being deleted. I believed this because the AfD was about Reginald V. Smith, and the source 7&6 cited (a) didn't mention Smith on or near the pages he cited, and (b) didn't contain the search string "Reginald". 7&6 couldn't explain this becase he couldn't recall the AfD.
During the subsequent discussion, Suffusion of Yellow found the problem. 7&6 had cited the page numbers from the wrong book. 7&6 cited pages 41, 384, 512 and 514 of this book (which only has 223 pages), but in fact Mr Smith was mentioned on pages 41, 384, 512, and 514 of this book.
I still have concerns with this, for the reasons Deor gave in that AN/I. Yes, Mr Smith is mentioned on those pages, but no, the book doesn't support the claims that 7&6 attributed to it. 7&6 attached that citation to the sentence: His wife Rogers Mae and sister Annie Marietta Smith-Randolph attended his graduation
, but the source does not verify any of that at all. I can't offer diffs because this is deleted content, so I ask the committee to use advanced permissions to check for themselves.
Wugapodes closed that AN/I with no consensus for a formal sanction but a final warning for 7&6.
In link 2, which opened 8 days after Wug's closure, the community couldn't agree a remedy.
Narrative: I believe that 7&6, an editor with 144,000 edits since 6th November 2007, has called these edits "a mistake".
Evidence: Behaviour at AfD after Wugapodes' final warning: 1 (links a fandom page in an AfD and says "We have an obvious problem with Spanish language sources"); 2, passim but especially comments by Vanamonde93 here and subsequently.
Ten Pound Hammer (S Marshall)
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: Note 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. Note the far lower nomination rate during that AN/I discussion and the far higher accuracy 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: 1, TPH says at AN/I I fully admit I act in haste way too much.... Instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on the cleanup list.
2, time stamp one (1) minute later, he nominates an article for deletion. 3, time stamp two (2) minutes after that, he nominates another article for deletion. Further deletion nominations on the same day: 4, 5, 6, 7.
Narrative: TPH is well aware that his use of AfD is excessive. He pledges to restrain himself but can't actually do it unless there are community restrictions on him. He does comply with restrictions when they're made clear.
Evidence: Canvassing. 1, 2: "Obligatory ping of" to editors likely to !vote "delete", one of whom is of course another party to this case.
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. A topic-ban worked; but another, lesser, crystal-clear and rigorous restriction would also work.
Lugnuts (S Marshall)
Narrative: Until 15th June Lugnuts' signature created linter errors. He was ignorant and obstreporous about changing it, and in that particular case, snide
AfD stats (S Marshall)
I've selected April 2022 as a recent, relevant period to analyze. I used this tool to extract the raw data and I summarized the output manually. The results I got were:-
- TenPoundHammer
- Edited 169 unique AfDs
- Was the nominator in 123 of them.
- Lugnuts
- Edited 47 unique AfDs
- Wasn't the nominator in any of them.
- Johnpacklambert
- Edited 182 unique AfDs
- Was the nominator in 19 of them.
- 7&6=thirteen
- No results. 7&6 typically doesn't use a word in bold (and he doesn't have to), so the tool didn't work.
Evidence presented by Cryptic
Johnpacklambert afds more of Lugnuts' articles than expected, but not by enough to constitute "harassment" as claimed
The collapsed table's only worth skimming; I talk about it in aggregate.
2022 afds by Johnpacklambert
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(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 by far 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 articles' categories than the birth year categories are; still, 55 out of these afds are pages in at least one category containing "Olympi". This includes all 37 of the pages Lugnuts created except W. E. Lawrence.
So about 67% of the Olympics-related stubs in yearly categories that Johnpacklambert nominated are Lugnuts creations. The 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 matter. —Cryptic 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Counting just non-medalist Olympian stubs in those yearly categories: 7108 total, 4578 by Lugnuts for 64.4% (data). I'm less confident in this query's methodology than the ones above. —Cryptic 18:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Lugnuts' signature
Lugnuts finally fixed his signature on June 15 [1]. That said, the consequences of using obsolete tags for so long aren't limited to the snippiness as he reverted people fixing it. The entirety of WP:Bots/Noticeboard ([2]) and 2⁄3 of its most recent archive ([3]) are currently devoted to complaining about the volume of editing from the bot that's eventually going to have to go around and fix every single one of those signatures. —Cryptic 17:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Aquillion
7&6=thirteen (Aquillion)
- 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: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
- I also want to point out this: [21] Saying that articles will be
disappeared
and the like, or grandiose statements like [22][23][24][25][26][27][28], 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.
7&6=thirteen and WP:IDHT
Two warnings by ANI closers are noted above. In the most recent ANI, 7&6=thirteen states, I am acutely aware of the warnings, pained by them. Even though the prior warning was premised on a false assumption, since I never made up sources.
[29], appears to refer to the prior warnings as mere allegations
[30], and states, I am not disputing the prior warnings, even though they were wrong in my opinion.
[31]. On the Talk page of this case, 7&6=thirteen states on 18 June, I have been repeatedly subjected to vexatious ANIs by an organized group. This becomes inevitably deletionists as the suspected protagonists.
[32]
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 Artw
TenPoundHammer untruths in edit summaries
- Redirected an article with the comment "unsourced", article contained a source. [33]
- Started an AfD with the statement "[34] - Prod was actually contested with the statement "decline prod. No evidence of WP:BEFORE being performed" [35].
TenPoundHammer recklessly deleting attempting deletion (by Prod or Redirect) or starting AfD discussions without performing proper WP:BEFORE
- On an AfD based on a prior prod of theirs: Claimed a Emmy award was unsubstantiated, sources for the award were subsequently added after trivial searching. [36]
- Redirected an article with a simple "not notable". Article has the cited claim that its subject contains "the first lesbian sex scene ever on American network TV" [37], which seems like something that should probably get it an AfD at minimum.
- Blanked an article for an unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot with ""[38]. Article was restored with comment "AfD it", which TPM proceeded to do[39], though they state "Redirect contested without comment". They also state "The pilot has never been officially released, meaning that the plot synopsis fails WP:V.", which is makes no sense, and "I could find no better sources." - when asked about BEFORE he replied "I did, and all I found were clickbait listicles from unreliable sources, fandom wikis, Reddit, and bootlegs of the pilot. "[40] - upon searching thsi was found not be the case and additional sources were predictably added by other users with trivial effort.
- Nominated The Adventures of Superboy for deletion with the claim "Nothing on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books". [41]. Sources were subsequently found and added via Google books, at which point he modified the AfD listing [42] and continued to comment as if it had been that way all along. [43].
Other sketchy statements by TenPoundHammer
- AfD claims "a brief burst of sourcing at the initial announcement, but literally nothing afterward" - looking at sources they spanned a period of multiple years. [44]. Article is a ridiculously obvious merge candidate but that is not a path they took for some reason.
Evidence presented by Mangoe
Review of mass article creation has proven contentious
A great deal of contention has arisen over the need to clean up mass creations of stubby articles. I have personally experienced this in the effort to clean up the geostubs but it appears to be an pervasive issue:
- A year ago, the Carlossuarez46 case came to ARBCOM after many complaints about that user's response (or lack thereof) to the cleanup of hundreds of stub article on places in California as well as in other states.
- At around the same time, User:Lugnuts was taken to AN/I for a mass creation spate of Turkish place names (see [45]). He lost the autopatrolled right after a long discussion.
- There was also a massive AN/I case concerning the Article Rescue Squadron and its members (see [46]) which resulted in two editors being banned from AfD participation. A third has been made a party to this case.
Stub cleanup is a massive effort
I have been among those devoted to the cleanup effort for stub place articles, and I discover that since February 2018 I have nominated on the order of 1200 such articles for deletion, most of which were deleted. I suspect others have nominated substantially more. This does not count PRODs, nor the articles I reviewed and decided not to nominate. I would estimate we are at best 70% done looking at US locations; there are many other countries which are probably in much worse shape.
Comparison of AfD activity
Using the Afd Stat tool, I have compiled the following:
| User | %Keep | %Delete | Accuracy | Nom Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lugnuts | 52% | 18% | 79% | 82% |
| John Pack Lambert | 0.2% | 98% | 88% | 65% |
| Ten Pound Hammer | 3% | 97% | 59% | 50% |
| Andrew Davidson | 90% | 1% | 54% | 43% |
| Mangoe | 2% | 92% | 80% | 83% |
I have included an example of someone banned from AfD per the ARS case, as well as myself. Note that AD's delete "votes" consist entirely of his eight nominations, so the nomination accuracy figure is imprecise.
Evidence presented by MER-C
Abuse by spammers
AFD has become the subject of systematic and pervasive abuse from undisclosed spam sockpuppets. Tactics, techniques, and procedures vary - some socks create poor quality nominations in order to burnish their credentials to get new page patrol permissions, some nominate articles created by competitors, some participate in "spam canvassing" to keep spam articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrendSpider, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinkmarkets) disguised with lots of low quality votes on other discussions, and some use AFD as a means of pressuring article subjects to pay for spamming services. See e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy. Checkuser has not been an effective tool in stopping the abuse, which is too close to the threshold of detection via other means.
I don't think it is likely that ArbCom have any additional means they can reasonably bring forth to curb this abuse. However, I am providing this section for context and in the small chance that they do.
Evidence presented by Northamerica1000
Johnpacklambert's drive-by !voting and disregard of WP:NEXIST
At times, Johnpacklambert appears to base their !votes at AfD only upon the state of sourcing within articles, going entirely against the grain of WP:NEXIST, part of the main Notability guideline page. It's concerning because as a longstanding, active contributor at AfD, one would assume he would be cognizant of the concepts presented there. It seems that at times that the user omits performing WP:BEFORE searches, as evidenced in discussions where others easily found sources. Also, the user has engaged in binges of rapid-fire, drive-by !voting, also an indicator of likelihood that WP:BEFORE searches are not performed.
The user sometimes bases deletion decisions upon their own personal subjective interpretations and opinions, rather than upon guidelines and policies. A direct example of Johnpacklambert ignoring WP:NEXIST exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pani, from April 2021 (diff, diff). The user was essentially using conflation to synthesize their own subjective guideline, rather than basing arguments for deletion upon existing guidelines that were decided upon by consensus.
See below for examples of the binge drive-by !voting and the basing of notability solely upon the state of sourcing in articles. All times are in UTC. North America1000 06:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Dog! – 13:30, 25 May 2022 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Animal Police – 13:31, 25 May 2022 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ready... Set... Cook! – 13:32, 25 May 2022 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Honeymoon (TV series) – 13:33, 25 May 2022 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekends with Maury and Connie – 13:34, 25 May 2022 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Worst Animal Nightmares – 13:35, 25 May 2022 (diff)
April 2021
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal sphincterotomy – 19:36, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auxiliary field – 19:37, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compelled signalling – 19:38, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C Sharp in Depth – 19:38, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSOBS – 19:39, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIA rhesus macaque calorie restriction study – 19:39, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow – 19:40, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan mao ling – 19:41, 13 April 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual synthesis – 19:41, 13 April 2021 (diff)
March 2021
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imran Khan (cricketer, born September 1973) – 20:52, 2 March 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imtiaz Ahmed (1990s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer) – 20:53, 2 March 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Seth – 20:54, 2 March 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Ismail (cricketer, born 1992) – 20:55, 2 March 2021 (diff)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Ismail (Quetta cricketer) – 20:56, 2 March 2021 (diff)
Evidence presented by NotReallySoroka
Lugnuts’ OTHERSTUFF
I came across Lugnuts in a recent RfD, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Walter Engelmann, where they commented on the user's previous comments elsewhere ("User has previously recommended..."), necessitating a clarification. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by JoelleJay
It generally takes incivility to trigger sanctions on editors who have poor !voting behavior at AfD
See how long it took before we even got TBAN proposals against several ARS members: [47], [48], [49]. There was wide agreement in identifying specific behaviors as longterm problems, including misrepresenting source coverage, availability, number, relevance, and quality; accusing nominators/other !voters of incompetence; mischaracterizing P&Gs and others' arguments; and generally wasting editors' time with pointless and unsupported commentary: [50] [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and basically every other support !vote in the last TBAN. So why didn't more admins step in much earlier with warnings after particular instances of misbehavior? I think the justifiable reluctance from admins at AfD to get involved in anything outside of closing, in case it compromises their apparent neutrality; and the lack of patrolling by non-closer admins; results in behavioral issues that aren't of the obvious incivility/socking/SPA/legal type being completely ignored outside of occasional closing statements.
Misleading assertions of source reliability, coverage, independence, and general compliance with guidelines
Example: Ortizesp has a long history of throwing in guideline-deficient !votes that do not advance consensus: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and more recently of making baseless assertions that GNG is met. See here, where, after saying "Guys, please stop taking the lazy way out and do a proper BEFORE, AFD isn't supposed to be a removal tool", he insists a blog, single-sentence mentions, media releases from the subject's own team, and an article on a different person are valid and significant coverage
after someone called him out about them. Here he states a blog interview is "independent and reliable". Same here. Ortizesp has been directly informed dozens of times by me, Ravenswing, BilledMammal, and many others that his understanding of guidelines is incorrect and that the types of sources he claims meet GNG emphatically do not. His <45% success rate for keeping should be another indicator he is not aligned with consensus, and yet he continues to make the same disruptive contributions without any consequences. He has also resorted to PAs and accusations of racism [62] on the rare occasions he responds substantively to another !voter. Please consider this a request to add him as a party.
Mass rapid-fire copy-paste !votes with little/no specificity to the subject or indication of source analysis
Example: GiantSnowman has made hundreds of !votes with identical rationales ([63], [64] en bloc, often within seconds of each other. He insults those whom he believes haven't done a search [65], [66], [67], but it's hard to believe he has done one himself or has even looked at sources he claims are sufficient [68]. Here he suggests he does not perform an initial source evaluation and commends Ortizesp for the (terrible) sources he produced (see above). Please consider this a request to add him as a party.
Evidence presented by Trainsandotherthings
These are largely from my own experiences at AfD. I'm sure one can find examples of bad behavior by inclusionists, exclusionists, deletionists, or whatever other label you wish to use. I make no secret I'm exclusionist. But regardless, terrible, policy-ignorant behavior which wastes our time or is actively harmful, not to mention blatant personal attacks and incivility, goes completely unpunished in almost all cases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
AfD participants, especially inclusionists, often flagrantly ignore policies and guidelines
- "Keep because ILIKEIT" [69]
- "Documented, therefore notable" [70]
- "If something is verifiable and there's not a good merge target, it can't be deleted" [71]
- "It's interesting" [72]
AfD is routinely turned into a battlefield, and nobody is enforcing any sort of civility unless it's egregiously uncivil
- The entire AfD from the above bullet is worth reading as it became acrimonious: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stations with no exit
- DRV is not exempt from acrimony either Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 25
- Another contentious AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter. 7&6=13 was consistently uncivil here. No consequences.
Evidence presented by Scottywong
Inclusionists and deletionists are a thing
On average, if you look at a random sample of AfDs, they typically result in a "Keep" closure around 15-20% of the time. Therefore, one could reasonably assert that an editor that votes to keep significantly more than 15-20% of a random sample of AfDs is biased towards inclusionism, and one that votes to keep less than 15-20% of the time is biased towards deletionism.
Using the afdstats tool, we can see that in the last 500 AfDs that 7&6=thirteen voted in, they voted to keep (or speedy keep) the article 88.8% of the time, making it clear that they are heavily biased towards inclusionism. Lugnuts appears to be a less extreme inclusionist, voting keep 53.6% of the time.
On the other side of the coin, Johnpacklambert seems to be a rather extreme deletionist, voting delete (or redirect/merge) 99.5% of the time. Similarly, TenPoundHammer votes to delete (or redirect/merge) around 97.2% of the time.
There is nothing inherently wrong with voting keep or delete in nearly every AfD that you participate in. However, analyzing an individual's voting patterns helps to provide additional insight into the potential motivations and agendas that some voters bring to AfD. This voting analysis can be combined with a behavioral analysis of each editor at AfD to draw additional conclusions. Arguably, it's reasonable to conclude that anyone with extreme voting tendencies (on either side) is likely to be acting with a battleground mentality at AfD.
The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) has long been an inclusionist haven to canvass for AfD votes
The Article Rescue Squadron is a WikiProject whose stated goal is to coordinate to improve articles that have been recently nominated for deletion, in the hopes that those improvements will "rescue" the article from deletion. Over the long period that ARS has been around, it has attracted a group of like-minded inclusionists that started using ARS as a communication hub for alerting members to the presence of borderline AfDs that might be swayed by a few extra keep votes. This problem was more extreme in the past, when ARS used a banner template to automatically track articles that need rescue. This banner was essentially a bat-signal for inclusionists, implicitly prompting them to show up at the AfD and vote to keep the article. And over time, article improvement became less common, and AfD votestacking became more common. Fortunately, this banner template was eventually deleted at MfD, the canvassing gradually reduced, and activity and membership at ARS dwindled. But still, looking at the articles recently listed for rescue at ARS, nearly every AfD was visited by at least 1-2 members of the ARS (quite often 7&6=thirteen), who almost always voted keep. This type of behavior promotes a battleground mentality and motivates deletionists to find a way to counter their strategy (see a recent discussion where some editors propose the formation of an "Article Deletion Squadron" to counter the ARS, and discuss a more thorough votestacking analysis). A particularly good recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter, where six members of ARS showed up to vote "keep" after the article was listed for rescue, and an argument broke out about improper canvassing. —ScottyWong— 23:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Vaulter
Johnpacklambert has a pattern of drive-by contributions at AFD contrary to WP:DISCUSSAFD
This is additional evidence of what Northamerica1000 referenced above: JPL has a track record of voting in AFDs in quick succession, often repeating the same or similar comments in support of his vote. Such rapid-fire voting is contrary to WP:DISCUSSAFD ("A pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive") as well as WP:MEATBOT. Here are some examples -- this is far from an exhaustive list:
- June 13 -- while the ANI thread related to Lugnuts was ongoing -- 11 delete votes in less than an hour
[73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]
- April 26 -- 20 votes in 50 minutes
[84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]
- February 8 -- 20 votes in 56 minutes
[104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]
- It's important to note that all this happened while JPL was under a community-imposed editing restriction limiting the number of articles he could be nominate for deletion per day to one as a result of rapid-fire nominations (see Ritchie's evidence above).
The ANI discussion prior to this case happened because JPL doesn't understand when to redirect
The nearly three-week long discussion at ANI that preceded this case arose because of events related to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Massonnat (a stub Lugnuts created). In that AFD, Lugnuts voted to redirect the page, with a rationale for doing so. JPL responded within minutes that such a redirect "is just not justified," despite the PAGs cited by Lugnuts. The page was ultimately redirected. And here we are weeks later.
Thank you
-- Vaulter 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Carrite
John Pack Lambert is well within acceptable norms at AfD
Let's just forget the politics and petty backstabbing and score-settling and look at Mr. Lambert's participation at Articles for Deletion objectively, shall we?
Making use of the AFDStats tool today (June 20, 2022), I took a look at his last 500 AfD votes.
John Pack Lambert voted Delete or Speedy Delete 401 times — 80% of the time. That's a lot, but that's his prerogative as a deletionist. The key question is: were those votes out of whack with the resulting consensus?
- Of these 401 Delete votes, 44 (11.0%) ended up in Keep or Speedy Keep — Mr. Lambert voted against consensus.
- Of these 401 Delete votes, 347 (86.5%) ended up in Delete, Speedy Delete, or the two de facto deletion results, Merge or Redirect.
- Of these 401 Delete votes, 10 ended as No Consensus.
In other words, Mr. Lambert voted with consensus essentially 86.5% of the time, and bucked consensus 11% of the time.
That's not bad.
Just to provide context, here is how I, a card-carrying inclusionist voted in my last 500 AFD votes.
I, Carrite, voted Delete or Speedy Delete 209 times — 42% of the time.
- Of these 209 Delete votes, 16 (7.7%) ended up in Keep or Speedy Keep — I voted against consensus.
- Of these 209 Delete votes, 176 (84.2%) ended up in the various forms of Deletion, Merger, or Redirection.
- Of these 209 Delete votes, 17 ended in No Consensus.
Not so very different in our participation, our conservative deletionist and our liberal inclusionist, are we?
Mr. Lambert is a committed, active, and productive Wikipedian serving the project as he best sees fit and should be treasured as a valuable participant rather than railroaded to the witch-burning pyre.
Ten Pound Hammer is a work in progress
Mr. Hammer and I go way back at AfD. We differ. He's a pretty hardcore deletionist and I'm an inclusionist and we differ. That's all.
He's good stuff for matters of his expertise (music topics in particular). He's a little bit........ sketchy with some of his votes at AfD.
Let's look at the stats in the same manner as above.
Mr. Hammer voted Delete or Speedy Delete 412 times out of his last 500 votes — 82% of the time.
- Of these 412 Delete Votes, 145 (35.2%) ended up with a result of Keep or Speedy Keep — Mr. Hammer voted against consensus.
- Of these 412 Delete Votes, 245 (59.5%) ended up Delete, Speedy Delete, Merge, or Redirect.
- Of these 412 Delete Votes, 22 ended No Consensus.
This is qualitatively dissimilar to the participation of Mr. Lambert at AFD. Whether it is problematic remains a matter of debate; I'd like to see him do a better job there. The question of flooding AFD with nominations is a separate matter for him as well, and some sort of hard limit of nominations per day — 3, 5, whatever — might be in order.
But let me say this in his defense: I do not have a single doubt that TPH is a committed Wikipedian acting as he sees best fit to improve the project. I do not doubt his honesty, his intelligence, or ultimately his willingness to accept whatever guidance he will receive from the community in this matter. Ahead of this proceeding he publicly, on-wiki, acknowledged that he had not handled things well and suggested a path for improvement. Alas, before we could see whether he would be good to his word — and I have no doubt that he would have been — this little spectacle was initiated. Pity.
Do not harm either of these solid Wikipedians! We do not all have to agree about everything. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by XOR'easter
TenPoundHammer has unreasonable sourcing standards and makes demands of other editors during deletion discussions
The close of the topic ban discussion from 2018 stated, There is a general view, even amongst those who opposed, that hectoring other editors with comments like "if there are sources about the article, put the ****ing things in and improve it!" does not give the desired result, and just leads to growing animosity.
Comments of this kind recur in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twists_of_curves (April 2022), repeated enough that an editor warned about bludgeoning. Policy doesn't require these additions, editors can be understandably reluctant to work on a page that might vanish, and as noted, demands generate needless ill will. That discussion also showed a seeming willingness to judge highly technical topics by exact string-matching [123][124][125], even after it was explained why this doesn't work [126][127].
For a less overt example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Face-Off for dismissing a source because the link then in the article did not work [128]. In a similar vein, a source was dismissed because I can't even read
it [129], which then became nobody can read
it [130], rather than an ordinary paywall [131]. Here we have a statement that If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V
[132], which is just contrary to policy.
TPH has been warned of blundgeon-y behavior
In addition to the case mentioned above, another recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Promise That Remains, where TPH quoted a guideline in the nomination and then repeated that quotation in replies, using escalating emphasis and font size. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by GreenC
7&6=thirteen (GreenC)
This ArbCom began as an examination of three users whose actions might be harming Wikipedia at large scale. Good! It was later expanded to include 7&6. They are two separate issues.
The case against 7&6 is being evidenced by many of the same who tried to sanction him at ANI in October and November, but failed because 7&6 has the support of many members of the community, and the evidence was never strong, they closed without sanction. User:S Marshall earlier accused 7&6 for things he did not do (closed: "likely a good faith error"). User:S Marshall now says he takes "delight" in seeing 7&6 at ArbCom (Special:Diff/1093739354/1093743304).
Since 1 January 2022, 7&6 has been involved in only 29 AfDs or about 1 per week:
AfDs involving 7&6 January to June 2022
|
|---|
|
Source: wikiget -u "7&6=thirteen" -s 20220101 -e 20220625 -n 4 | grep 'for deletion'
ARS evidence
|
|---|
|
User:EEng has been an inveterate cynical commentator about ARS for years. For example during this ArbCom evidence phase he called ARS a "religion" (Special:Diff/1093919940/1093931066), which implies blind faith and not objective decisions. Casting aspersions like this against ARS whole-cloth is common by a minority of editors. This thread at ARS says it all, where he jokingly says he remains "subtle" about long running personal feuds (Special:Diff/1093594879/1093594962), though he originally said "I hide it well" (Special:Diff/1093594285/1093594879). There have been 10 attempts to close down ARS over the years and consistently the community has supported the project: listed at top Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron. There has long been direct evidence of anti-ARS dog whistling at Wikipediocracy, for example most recently related to this ongoing ArbCom case: [133] ("the old-school ARSehole Brigade still left"). It is a constant thing at Wikipediocracy, with people disparaging ARS and its members whenever there is an ANI or contentious AfD, ARS has been a target of some of the most viscous ex-users of our community. |
I picked two users, as examples, due to space constraint, though I make no accusations of off-site activity by users here in good standing. Look, this case is strongest against the original three users: the question is if they are doing the right thing for Wikipedia at large scale. This is the evidence ArbCom should focus on. The case of 7&6 involves some trivial involved-editor personal grudges have spilled into ArbCom with little scale impact.
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.