Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Purpose of the workshop

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

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Imperfection

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Policies and guidelines are distinct

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manual of style governs presentation, not content

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing includes rewriting

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Essays are not to be weighted in deletion decisions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatives to Deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion processes perform poorly when overloaded

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Closing administrators should ignore irrelevant arguments in deletion discussions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing administrators shall routinely implement alternatives to deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Closers are meant to think about the discussions they close in the light of policy, and you'll find WP:ATD right near the top of the deletion policy, where it's been for a very long time. If during an AfD someone proposes a reasonable, workable alternative to deletion, then the closer needs to upweight their suggestion in the close. But in my view it's the AfD participants who should exhaust exhaust the alternatives to deletion. It's not actually the closer's role to do that. In other words, if Wikipedians reach a thoughtful, considered consensus to delete, then it's not for the closer to undermine that with the closer's own interpretation of ATD. I offer no opinion on whether it's Arbcom's role to say this.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful if I link some relatively recent community thought on this.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Accuracy is more important than speed

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Editors must be given a reasonable opportunity to improve an article

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Fait accompli (1)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Fait accompli (2)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Fait accompli (3)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed principles

Notability requires verifiable evidence.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Criticism and casting aspersions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Good faith and disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sanctions and circumstances

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

JohnPackLambert and 7&6=thirteen

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On the statistical evidence

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A close look at civility and policy/guideline compliance tells us far more about an editor's conduct than statistics ever could. The evidence I presented regarding Lugnuts shows four AfDs [1][2][3][4] where articles with no SIGCOV sourcing whatsoever were kept based on spurious votes such as "meets NCRIC". These would show as "accurate" votes in the statistics despite running counter to what the guideline actually says. This also reflects either a lack of familiarity with the relevant guideline or an unwillingness to go against the numerical vote count on the part of closing admins, which is another issue that should be addressed here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

On Lugnuts "misleading" other editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning WP:BEFORE

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: