Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence

JoelleJay (Moved from evidence page)
There appears to be no policy-based mechanism for discouraging persistent poor behavior (beyond incivility) at AfDs. Unless a closer gives extensive details on their analysis, it is a total black box to participants as to whether an argument was acceptable or carried any weight. Without having faith that the eventual closer will be both familiar with the relevant guidelines and empowered to disregard non-compliant !votes, other participants feel compelled to waste time explaining why particular arguments are deficient. But because it's coming from "the other side", and because there's no impetus to change if there are no consequences, the feedback is ignored and the behaviors persist. Two of the most common issues, spanning both keep and delete !voters, are:

1. Mass rapid-fire copy-paste !votes or noms with little to no specificity to the subject and zero indication the editor has performed any source evaluation.

2. Intentional, egregiously misleading assertions of source reliability, depth, length, independence, and general compliance with guidelines.

I anticipate we will have plenty of diffs of alleged misbehavior from the named parties, and anyway the issues are more representative of the broader "conduct in deletion discussions" scope, so I won't go into examples from Lugnuts et al's editing. However, in order to demonstrate the scale of affected AfDs and how long the behaviors from single !voters continue without any meaningful intervention, I will need to give a lot of evidence on editors who are not already involved in this case. So before I do that, I want to make sure that that is ok to do here, and how/whether I'm supposed to leave an alert on their talk pages. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving this. I also had a question for @Cryptic -- do you have stats on the proportion of Lugnuts-created Olympics stubs from the time periods mentioned that are on specifically non-medallists? I know JPL has been using that as a major criterion for which articles he considers deleting. I will move this question back to the evidence page alongside my evidence (when I get the ok to post it) if that's a more appropriate place for it. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * query/65500 for the entire period. It assumes that all medalists are categorized such (seems less likely to have been done consistently than just the categorization as Olympians), and that the medalist categories all contain both "Olympi" and "edalist" (the ones I've glanced at all do).  4578 of 7108, 64.4%.  I can do year-by-year queries if you really want them, but I don't expect them to vary any more than the previous data do. —Cryptic 01:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really informative and I think is consistent with JPL's assertion that he wasn't targeting Lugnuts' creations specifically. JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * hey there. I've moved this to the talk page for two reasons. First, everything that's above the line I've inserted would need to be supported by evidence in order to be included/considered. This has the potential to be a pretty wide-ranging case (as you acknowledge) and so we're going to be fairly firm about making sure evidence is supported by diffs/links to be considered. Second, because you ask some great questions that lots of people could benefit from reading. wrote up the following (that I have lightly edited) which will hopefully give you the guidance you're asking for:


 * We have received some questions about providing evidence about non-parties to this case. Evidence about non-parties to this case may be offered for two purposes:
 * To support a request that we add the user as a party to this case.
 * To provide context for other evidence and other contentions related to the scope of the case (not for the purposes of demonstrating misconduct by the non-party).


 * In response to questions, we clarify that:
 * The 1-week timeline for providing evidence about non-parties applies to Category #1 (add a party to the case), not Category #2 (context related to the general scope of the case).
 * Category #1 submissions should include an explicit request to add the user as a party.
 * For both Category #1 and #2, we expect non-parties to be notified of any evidence presented that relates to them. For this purpose, one of the following talk page messages should be left:
 * Category 1: "An editor has requested that the Arbitration Committee list you as a party to an ongoing arbitration case. You may review the request at  and, if you wish to do so, participate in the case. The Arbitration/Guide to arbitration may also provide helpful information about Arbitration and how to participate."
 * Category #2: "An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission at ."


 * The Committee does not, as a practice, sanction non-party editors. If sanctions are to be considered against a non-party editor, it is practice to make them a party to the case.
 * Please let me or one of the other two drafting arbs know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I've revised my more general observation on AfD issues easily becoming intractable without bringing new charges against non-parties:


 * Regarding my claim that it generally takes incivility to trigger sanctions on editors who have poor !voting behavior at AfD, see how long it took before we even got TBAN proposals against several ARS members:, , . There was wide agreement in identifying specific behaviors as problematic. , , So why didn't admins step in much earlier with warnings after particular instances of misbehavior? I think the  from admins at AfD to get involved in anything outside of closing, in case it compromises their apparent neutrality; and the lack of patrolling by non-closer admins; results in non-incivility/socking/SPA/legal issues being completely ignored outside of occasional closing statements.


 * Is this ok to add to the main page now? I do also have many diffs of individuals with longterm AfD disruption histories but will hold back on that for now. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @JoelleJay that meets the standards expected of evidence submissions and you should feel free to post it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft of evidence
Hi, I have never submitted evidence to an ArbCom case before. Can you comment on the draft I've compiled at User:LaundryPizza03/sandbox before I submit it at the evidence page? Also, where would I place my signature? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 06:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @LaundryPizza03 the evidence is supported by diffs and is of the kind of evidence others file. You don't need to include a signature, just make sure that your section heading has your username. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The devil you know vs. the devil you don't know

 * re In what way is a quotation from  Baudelaire (together with the unsupported accusation that "They are relentless in their quest to cleanse and purge the encyclopaedia of all articles they don't like") evidence, while my comment is not? I respectfully suggest that you either remove his comment as well, or restore mine. EEng 20:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ain't how an Arbcom case works. You have to present sourced evidence, against or in support of editors, concerning the topic. It's not the same as AN or ANI. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My precise point is that FH's comment didn't offer any sources. Unless you consider Baudelaire a source. EEng 21:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentences have been discussed by the drafting arbs since they were posted. For now they have been allowed to stand as a small part of a larger sourced evidence submission. When saying a sourced evidence submission this includes sourcing and context for the Baudelaire quote - that is at least 1 editor has suggested deletionists don't exist - which does tie into the  further evidence submitted. This falls into the range of a submission arbs will use their judgement to see if what has been presented is sufficient to make the assertion. I am glad we both agree your comment was a comment and not a submission of evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reasoned and gracious reply. I'm proud to say that my experience with Arbcom is limited enough that I'm very poorly versed in its distinction between comments and evidence. But you've stimulated me now to explore the structure of Arbcom proceedings a bit, and I can dimly see that my point will be better made during the Workshop phase.
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. Afterthought: Do you think that identifying other editors with Satan counts as a personal attack?
 * As the editor in question, I want to make it clear that my point here wasn't that literally no people unironically identify as inclusionists or deletionists, but that skimming that discussion for people using those terms unironically would quickly show sufficient reason to believe that a case would be necessary, ie. they are quite often used as snarlwords in a way that makes it easy to see the problem with just a quick search in discussions that have become heated. In particular, in the diff I linked there, it's pretty easy to see, with a quick search, that the only people unironically using the term "deletionist" on that page are using it to denigrate the people they're identifying, and only people using "inclusionist" are likewise denigrating the people they're identifying; and both are using it to imply that they're identifying a group who deletes / includes things indiscriminately and without regard for policy. I didn't bother to submit this as evidence since my past experience with ArbCom suggests it might be too broad (it was a point intended to indicate the broad necessity of a case, not the sort of narrow thing that goes into evidence - and I haven't examined the conduct of the people who were using those words enough to say whether it would be worth pulling them into the case; I was just making the point that there was a lot of people who might be worth pulling in, ie. we needed a broad case.)  But I could include the relevant diffs of people using inclusionist and deletionist as insults if people think it necessary... I feel it's unlikely ArbCom would make a broad finding of fact that the terms are often used in insulting manners or the like and that that usage violates WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:CIVIL, but I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible thing to build an argument for. Personally I think it's self-evident that the terms are largely used as insults and was a bit surprised someone would object to such a basic statement of fact. But, again, the evidence for that would involve a lot of diffs of people who are not parties and who I am not certain should be dragged in as parties, since the idea would be to show broadly derogatory usage of the terms rather than just a handful of parties using it that way. --Aquillion (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my extensive experience it's only self-described inclusionists who believe in this inclusionist-deletionist dichotomy. The rest of us just want WP's policies and guidelines followed as best possible (which, yes, sometimes means stuff needs to be deleted). <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there's at least one instance on the discussion I linked with someone calling someone an "inclusionist" in a way that I feel could reasonably be read as insulting, but yeah. I do think that the terms do far more harm than good and that we'd benefit by discouraging people from at least using them in an obviously insulting or WP:ASPERSION-y manner, since it can be simultaneously an aspersion, uncivil, and representative of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. But I feel like it's only something ArbCom is likely to look at in a FoF if a whole bunch of parties to the case were clearly using the words that way (and therefore it needs to be established in order to explain sanctions premised on that.) And even then it might be a bit broad... ArbCom cannot magically solve all our underlying cultural fissures. In my experience, the most dangerous part about having long-standing editors overtly treat a topic as a battleground is that it spreads; people they disagree with become more hardline in response, while people who agree with them, seeing someone vocally express opinions they agree with, line up behind them. There's an element of "social permission" where one or two people taking strident, overt battleground stances can rapidly break an entire topic area. So I feel that that conduct is worth coming down on hard and fast. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians is quite old, some of the members are still active editors, and I do not believe that they generally use the term ironically or insultingly about themselves. There are a lot of editors.  No matter what the view is, you can usually find somebody who believes it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping Eng. I've removed the wording you rightly flagged as concerning. Sorry about the intial choice of words. It was shocking to see 13 added as a party. I was maybe too concious of the need to get some defence in early, based on some recent ANIs where no one did that, causing a momentumn effect that resulted in what seemed to be unwarranted permanbans of good editors. Voting delete is of course not devilish, sometimes its even aligned with good, as is the case with attack pages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not too unhappy at being identified with Satan. Talk about street cred! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Redux
Re, having now recovered from several minutes of staring blankly into space in slack-jawed amazement, I'll just say the following: <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I resent being called inveterate. I've got as much backbone as anyone.
 * I'm not sure what to make of editors being characterized as viscous ("having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid"). Sounds unsanitary.


 * Viscous was an auto-correct typo quickly fixed. Glad you enjoyed it. You might be thinking of invertebrate. -- Green  C  22:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one explanation. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that, for context, it should be noted that GreenC seemed to say at the time that EEng's comments (the ones in evidence) did not indicate that EEng had been part of the problem of long-term grievance: . If I compare saying "subtle" (cited in the evidence) with calling criticism of ARS at AfD a "Reign of Terror": in the same discussion thread, I think I can detect a difference in tone. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am moved to wonder at the vague allegations made concerning Wikipediocracy's members. If there is some actual evidence of off-site coordination going on, it should be produced, but the passage gives off a strong air of "anyone they attack can't be all bad." It doesn't seem to me that a link to one comment by one person whom I believe active on this project is evidence at all, much less evidence relevant to this case. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Evidence without diffs
The rules say:-
 * Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.

It's my case that some editors are flooding our deletion processes. I want to discuss the sheer numbers of edits -- edits which aren't individually very problematic but become a problem by the combination of high quantity and low quality. Diffs don't help me do that. What would the committee accept by way of evidence?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @S Marshall you're right that diffs are sometimes the wrong evidence which is why I've been trying to say diffs/links though maybe "valid attribution" is the better phrase? Take evidence which contains no links at all but hasn't been removed (nor do I know of anyone suggesting it should be) because it is clearly based on something verifiable (their AfD logs and specifically a well known tool for analyzing them). So if you're doing something that looks at their contributions, a link to their contributions (perhaps filtered in someway) or a link to a user search may be appropriate ways of submitting valid evidence. Does that help? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Barkeep. I'll use those tools.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can link directly to an individual comment, if that's ever helpful. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence is the link to Barkeep's reply in this section.  That long tail decodes as "comment signed by Barkeep49 at 18:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC) on the page after the one signed by S Marshall that was signed at 18:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @S Marshall, you have to use unicode characters to see the AfD stats for 7&6. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is because 7&6=thirteen's signature, in wikicode, is not User:7&6=thirteen but instead User:7&amp;amp;6=thirteen . The tool searches through the wikicode for signatures, and assumes that a user's username will appear in their signature. In the rare case like this one where that isn't true, you have to use the "alternate name" field to tell the tool what to look for in the signature. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 22:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's exactly what I did with the above link. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition of new parties, and clarification
I have added a request that the editors I highlight in my evidence be added as parties, since the extent of the diffs went beyond what a Category 2 notification would cover. However, the reason I gave examples of alleged misbehavior from those editors was not because they have extensive dispute histories that the community has not been able to handle, but because they exemplify what my first subsection claims: that specific AfD behaviors widely regarded as problematic especially when occurring large-scale are nevertheless not sanctioned until aggravated by incivility. So it is for actually the lack of formal warnings or ANI cases for their behaviors--again, despite being exactly the type of conduct condemned by both "sides", including in several other editors' Evidence sections here, and despite eliciting dozens of informal warnings within discussions--that I included them in my Evidence. If this means they must be added (or officially requested) as parties, then ok, but if it's possible for their behavior to be reviewed without the threat of sanctions, that would probably be more equitable considering the circumstances. JoelleJay (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @JoelleJay Yes, we can review their actions as examples of the problematic conduct in the topic area, without needing to consider sanctions on those particular editors. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical question: Would the same thing be appropriate for discussing the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS)? A few evidence sections have mentioned it, but a deep dive into the effect it has had on deletion-related discussions, whether it is inherently WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, and most of all the question of whether (despite its efforts to stay within the rules) it fundamentally encourages WP:CANVASSing would require a lot of evidence about non-parties. The more evidence I dig up and the more other people submit, the more central it seems, but knowing what sort of evidence to present given its massive controversial history is tricky. (Or whether that is even a useful route to pursue vs. focusing on individuals - but that might be the sort of thing that has to be determined by looking at evidence.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ARS is a Wikiproject, and Wikiprojects are made up of editors. As a rule we examine the actions of editors rather than projects, so we can examine the behavior of editors either directly as parties or incidentally in terms of general deletion-related conduct. While ARS may come up as part of that context, it is not the main focus of the case. So while we are willing to do a survey of the deletion-related conduct our focus in this case is on disruptive behavior of editors. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll strike the requests to add them as parties. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel that there's nothing wrong in principle with a defined group of people who rescue worthy articles from deletion. Arguably, where ARS members' behaviour has been problematic, those editors can be named and discussed as individuals.  I think that some people think articles on the ARS' rescue list attract "keep" !votes that lack thorough source analysis and in that sense it's a canvassing venue, but: we allow wikiprojects to do exactly the same thing.  Nominate any article about a sportsperson for deletion, for example, and you'll get exactly the same kind of brigading even if the ARS bat-signal never goes out.  And I feel that the committee may struggle to deal with brigading -- best you can realistically hope for is an "editors are reminded not to brigade" which is perfectly useless in practice.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's necessarily true in practice. Anecdotally, my experience is that subject-specific Wikiprojects aren't exclusively interested in keeping all articles at AfD that fall under their topic area. They are just a group of editors that are highly interested (and usually highly knowledgeable) about that topic area, which means they probably have a pretty good grasp on the notability guidelines for their topic area as well. If someone brought a clearly non-notable article to AfD that was within their topic area, I wouldn't be surprised to see a "brigade" of notified Wikiproject members vote to delete it. That's the difference between most Wikiprojects and ARS: Wikiprojects are interested in writing and maintaining articles in a topic area, whereas ARS members are interested in preventing the deletion of all articles in all topic areas. The motivations of each group are entirely different. That's why notifying subject-specific Wikiprojects has never been considered canvassing (and is even encouraged at WP:AFD). <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 22:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are certainly projects where interest in the quality of content is mostly divorced from the desire to increase the content. The medicine and physics projects would be examples. However, there are definitely other wikiprojects where a primary focus is expanding coverage of their topic (generally with biographies) and which historically are reliable fonts of keep !votes. This is especially the case for projects that have developed their own insular "notability guidelines"; if a subject meeting their criteria is taken to AfD, it's almost a guarantee members will !vote keep. This is also the case whenever there is a threat to their authority, such as efforts to restrict notability. For example, immediately after various sports wikiprojects were notified of the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC there was a flood of opposes to all the proposals, most of them based on incorrect understandings of the current guidelines. There is also a tendency to attack participants whom they believe "aren't actually interested in [topic]". JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A comment 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) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mangoe this comment is fine here but you may wish to move it to the Workshop's analysis of evidence for wider exposure. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that pointer, and I shall do so. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

BEFORE / Burden of proof
A common point of conflict in sports and geography AfDs is the WP:BEFORE search requirement. Some editors believe that noms should go to great lengths to search for sources, even to the point of looking for non-English print sources that may only be available in the subject's locale, while others feel that this is an unfair expectation when dealing with articles that were mass-created from a database by an editor who also didn't search for SIGCOV sources. I feel like this could be addressed here somehow (principle? finding of fact?) but I'm not sure what type of evidence would be appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, the evidence would be proof that You could then draft something on the Workshop page that is a principle and FoF about BEFORE. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You could point to the ongoing discussions (, plus the ANI cases already cited), which I think support the idea that there is at least a reasonable number of editors who see tension between a maximalist interpretation of WP:BEFORE and the requirements of WP:BURDEN. I suppose such a FoF would be useful if you wanted to rebut arguments that editors should be sanctioned based on BEFORE, ie. it shows that at least some parts of the community are uneasy about sanctioning editors based on BEFORE if that's going to mean that the burden of finding sources when they challenge an unsourced article falls on them rather than on the article creator (or whoever wants to retain it.) Full disclosure, many of the arguments were made by me, but I think the relevant discussions show enough community ambivalence to support an argument of caution when it comes to sanctions premised on BEFORE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added this myself, with some additional observations I made when looking into it (especially a contradiction between WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST.) It's ultimately up to ArbCom to interpret this, but I want to at least make the point that the interpretation of BEFORE people are calling for here is not uncontroversial (and is not even consistent within our guidelines.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to keep in mind the scope of the case. I don't think we can relitigate the guideline changes insofar as they relate to the notability of sportspeople here, but they have a substantial impact on the case because of course Lugnuts created ~94,000 stubs about Olympic sportspeople under one set of notability rules and now we're trying to deal with them under another.  I'm currently hoping someone else will produce the diffs about this during this evidence stage so I can save some wordcount.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, in your evidence you link this tool, which gives the most prolific article creators of all time. Are you aware of any tool that tells us who the most prolific article creators are within a narrower period of time, such as last month? Cryptic, you also appear to have a good idea of the available tools; are you aware of such a tool? BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * query/65740. I'm afraid quarry and petscan are the only external tools I pay any attention to at all, so I'm not the person to ask. —Cryptic 05:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BEFORE would be infinitely more valuable if it were framed as "before creating an article" instead of "before nominating an article for deletion". <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 21:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How about framing BEFORE as "before doing anything regarding the existence of an article" (i.e. before creating it OR before nominating it for deletion). ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, and it should also be standard practice to immediately draftify any article that doesn't cite sources demonstrating notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This (or similar) has been proposed and rejected so many times it has two entries on the perennial proposals list: Perennial proposals and Perennial proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Category #2 Submissions - broadness of "relate"
I have prepared evidence of canvassing; this includes diffs of the notifications that were issued, and who they were issued to. However, I am not sure whether I should notify the fourteen editors these notifications were issued to; they are related to the evidence submitted, but only distantly. Could you clarify? BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal apologies as I thought I'd answered this question but obviously had not. You only need to notify those you're accusing of doing the canvassing (if they are not already party to the case). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In a separate piece of evidence, I mentioned BlackJack, but I didn't notify them as they are indefinitely banned. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A few of the comments (from, , and me) in the (now closed) "addition of new parties" section were relevant to this topic/canvassing in general. Is it ok to continue/move/copy that discussion here? JoelleJay (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requests for evidence limit increase and to add Jclemens as a party
May my evidence limit be increased by 500 words/50 diffs? I have collected evidence of Jclemens asking closers to reconsider AfDs closed as delete, based on his disputed interpretation of ATD. There were 6 (3 refused no change to outcome, 1 DRV, 1 relist, 1 self-overturn) in 2017 and roughly the same number in 2022. These are noteworthy examples: I believe this evidence is in scope because it continues the conversation about minority views from On the statistical evidence.
 * 1) User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 112 (March 2022) – refused, Northamerica1000 recommended RfC
 * 2) User talk:SoWhy/Archive 25 (June 2017) – refused rationale added, SoWhy mentioned the AfD's consensus
 * 3) WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 14 – "Deletion endorsed, but history restored for merge." 5 endorse, 2 restore history (MichaelQSchmidt specified both), 1 overturn/merge (Jclemens alone)

I am asking to add Jclemens as a party based on this evidence because he has a history of A reminder could be an appropriate remedy.
 * 1) Promoting his interpretation of ATD and representing it as policy
 * 2) Despite it having been disputed many times over a period of years
 * 3) In inappropriate places, including his proposals at the workshop, especially the Alternatives to Deletion principle and his remedies.

I am aware that the original week to add parties has passed, but I saw two comments about the message's exact wording and that Dream Focus is being considered. It seems that you have been the drafting arbitrator most active on this case? Thank you. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Flatscan the drafters (myself, Wugapodes, and CaptainEek) made the decision to not add Dream Focus as a party to the case. We will consider this request but am I correct that the request for the evidence limit is tied up with the request to add Jclemens as a party? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and consideration. I think my requests can be evaluated separately. Even if Jclemens is not added as a party, my planned evidence could support general proposals roughly like these. Note that they need revision and polish – for example, "misrepresent" does not cover all the instances in evidence.
 * Misrepresenting policy is disruptive.
 * Multiple editors have misrepresented policy while participating in deletion-related editing. Evidence: 1, 2, 3
 * Editors are reminded not to misrepresent policy. Disagreement should be resolved by seeking consensus via dispute resolution. (I skimmed the case index and found two that addressed editors or the community generally: March 2022 and July 2019.)
 * Others' existing evidence focuses on comments at AfD, and my planned evidence includes user talk examples. (I also made small corrections to my original post with this edit.) Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Flatscan an extended piece of evidence submitted against someone who is not a party to the case is not going to be helpful for anyone. So if what you want to do is very focused on Jclemens that's just not a good use of your time and might be collapsed by the drafters. If, on the other hand, you wish to present evidence about general AfD issues, for which Jclemens is one of several editors you're using to make a point that might be OK. So if you think you're doing this second thing, you can have 500 more words and 50 more diffs from what you have already used. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your consideration and advice. I have more to present on how promotion of the disputed ATD interpretation has influenced AfD and DRV outcomes. For everyone's convenience, my counts as of the latest revision are 408 words (pasted into a word processor) and around 27 links (manual count). Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Requests for evidence limit increase
This is a request to receive written consent of an arbitrator for a word limit increase. I have more information to present, but have reached my 500-word maximum. North America1000 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Northamerica1000 how many words are you looking for? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a rebuttal that is around 100 125 words, and some extra space for the potential provision of more evidence and diffs would be beneficial. I suppose 200 250 words. North America1000 02:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nb. Amended above. North America1000 03:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Northamerica1000 you are approved for an additional 250 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I please get another 500/50 to add more examples of persistent poor behavior at AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Approved. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I please get another 250/25 to present evidence of canvassing of WikiProjects, as well as AfD's closing with a local consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the evidence phase will close soon, I have boldly added some evidence on local consensuses. Depending on how you count collapsed content, this may push me over the limit in the absence of an increase; I understand if that results in this evidence being refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator.
 * However, my request for an increase still stands, to legitimize the addition if collapsed content counts towards the limit, and to present evidence of canvassing of WikiProjects. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

7&6 extension request
This is a request to receive written consent of an arbitrator for a word limit increase. I am a party here. I have prepared my response. It necessarily exceeds the limits. I was made a party, and I need to present a defense. A full and conplete exposition will reveal who I am, what I did, and why. I also believe it will shed useful light on "canvassing: allegations and the whole WP:ARS situation: it will benefit the panel, process and wikipedia. I am a lawyer and this is a short as I can make it. I can send it to the aritrators for their review.  Please provide a method. It is complete and ready to file.   I respectfully request permision to file this, ASAP.  Thank you.    <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * How long is it? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly know. Lots of links and I produced it in Corel WordPerfect.  The basic argument is about 4 pages, single spaced.  There are 8 pages more, but they are all links, and I am guessing that would drop down a lot.  They are basically a list, and I think it will really collapse down because huge swaths are just links that won't even appear as  text.  If I were hearing a case of this magnitude (not just about me), I would err on the side of too much of the irrelevant rather than too little of the relevant.  But today, I am not the arbitrator.  You are, and I humbly big for your indulgence.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you install a script like User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js which should let you get a word count if you preview it in your sandbox? We generally allow parties extra latitude but there is a limit somewhere and I would find it helpful to know what I'm consenting to, and I'm guessing my fellow drafters would too. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Barkeep49 I am not familiar with that script. I ran the text from my sandbox to the character calculator at DYK, and the answer was 15,263.  I hope that helps.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 15,263 words or characters? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Characters. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 03:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, the file boils dpwn from 31,162 characters to 15,263. Lots of links, which scrunched down to almost nothing.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 03:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I am tapped out. It is 11:49 p.m. here, and you have taken my all.  If you decide to take it, please let me know and extend the time.  And if not, you can muddle through without my input, and I will leave it in the hands of the gods.  Best regards.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of the drafting arbitrators, the count based on the clerks' wordcount script is 2,454 words and 247 links. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sooner I would submit it, the sooner others could respond. That would benefit the process.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @7&6=thirteen there are two issues that are being discussed. The first is the extension request and the second is that even the original request for a word extension happened after the evidence phase had closed July 9 at 23:59 UTC. The weekend didn't help our deliberations and hopefully we'll have an answer for you soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The time and date recorded were out of sync with my local time. I don't now why and can't explain it. I'm sorry for the confusion. I am confident you will do wht you believe will help the process. Best to you. Respectfully. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that it was actually 13:41 on July 11, 2022 that my last comment was posted. I am on Eastern Daylight Time. So the problem persists. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And the time stamp on my last note is bizarre. 17:47, when I am posting this note aat 14:27.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So there is no misunderstanding. The time and dates being published are wrong.  I filed this on January 9, 2022 local time and date.  You can deny my request, but factually this is an unsupported and erroneous basis. I am posting this at 15:47 E.D.T.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @7&6=thirteen the closure times for the stages are and have been for previous cases based on the UTC timezone. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @7&6=thirteen because editors come from all over the world, all times on Wikipedia are UTC unless otherwise specified - timestamps even specify it explicitly. This means that timestamps are different to local time for most editors, e.g. my local timezone is currently one hour ahead of UTC, Enterprisey notes on their userpage they are in the Pacific timezone (so presumably currently 7 hours behind UTC). Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As both Dreamy and Thyduulf point out UTC is what is used for Arbitration Committee deadlines. That said, there's no desire to "gotcha" and so the drafting arbs have agreed to include your evidence @7&6=thirteen. As the page is now protected I will be copying over User:7&6=thirteen/sandbox for you. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you allow 7&6 to edit their evidence? Right now it reads like garbled stream of consciousness and there's very little formatting, which makes it extremely difficult to follow. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for my failure to note it was UTC. Haven't been involved in this before.  I plead ignorance and ask for mercy.  I sincerely apologize for being out of step; I did not intentionally misstate anything. Namaste. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I notice that the blank template section is now gone. 7&6=thirteen should have copied this section onto the bottom to leave for the next editor who wishes to contribute evidence. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To what purpose? Evidence was already closed when their submission was posted, and had been for almost two days. —Cryptic 06:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some clerk (evidently) made that change. The arbitrators have yet to rule on the pending motion.  The issue is whether they will decide the issue and matters of policy ex parte and without a fully developed record.  Matters of important Wikipedia policy ought to be fully addressed, and not treated as some kind of civil default judgment.  More knowledge makes for a better result and a more respectable and creditable process and final resosolution.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @7&6=thirteen what pending motion are you talking about? Motion means something in an arbitration context but I suspect you're using it in the sense of a lawyer filing something before a court. I feel like your experience as a lawyer is setting expectations that you shouldn't have as ArbCom is not a court of law. That said if I understand what you're getting at, is it answered by Arbitration_Committee/Procedures? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @LaundryPizza03 I removed that section when I pasted 7&6's submission as the evidence phase had closed and so there won't be a next person - or if there is it'll likely have to be done by an admin clerk or arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Request for leave to file my response as submitted. So far as I know, there was no determination by the panel.  Perhaps I missed it.  Clearly, you have the power to grant or deny it.  The question is whether you should?  That is a matter of judgment.
 * I would also note that this is being decided by a panel or arbitrators, not just one.
 * You may be right. My  experience in courts and arbitrations involved notions of Due process and Alternate dispute resoluton.  Whether they apply here is something the panel might consider. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any lack of clarity but your evidence was accepted here and the evidence copied over here. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the content added in a bit of an EC, about the panel, , and I are the drafting arbs who are empowered by the larger committee to make decisions during the case. The entire committee votes on the final decision. Your request was considered by the three drafting arbs - along with the input of one other arb - and the diff I noted above accepting it was me acting on behalf of all the drafters. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I was not trying to tell you how to run y9our tribunal.  When I sit on panels as chair, it is the panel that act.
 * In any event, I hope my now accepted response gives the panel a better understanding. This controversy and the panel's disposition involves important policy quesitons that are more trnscendental than whatever happens to me. Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that this has been accepted as evidence. Where do I proffer it?  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been included in the evidence subpage and this is where evidence is posted in cases. This is all that needs to happen for the evidence to be considered. You can refer to this evidence in the workshop by linking to the section with your evidence at . Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Dreamy Jazz Thank you. I don't seem to be able to edit there.  I had done minor edits and corrected some erroneous red links in my sandbox.  The links show that some of them were not deleted articles.  Can somebody please transfer that content.
 * I apologize for having to ask, but I am new to this process. Thank you. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @7&6=thirteen maybe I am not communicating as clearly as I could be but also it feels like you are not fully reading and/or clicking on what I link. It seems like you've been thinking that accepted means "you can do it" where as accepted has meant "it was done". In this edit I wrote in part Yesterday I linked to both my accepting your evidence and where I edited the evidence page with an edit summary of . Now, you're asking for the chance to further edit - presumably with these changes you've done today. As you're now aware the evidence phase closed more than 3 days, which is why you couldn't edit it yourself, but your request will be taken under consideration. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Barkeep49 I understood what you said. I know it was accepted, and it is protected from being edited.
 * However, I was trying to correct some red links. Their existence creates thee erroneous impression tha the articles were deleted or do not exist.   They are corrected in my sandbox.  I had done minor edits and corrected some erroneous red links in my sandbox.  The links show that some of them were not deleted articles.  Can somebody please transfer that content.  Thank you. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand 3 days after the phase closed you've made some changes to fix some errors caused, I'm guessing, by the fact that you did the original submission late at night for you. You are now asking for your evidence to be updated with these changes. As I noted in my last message to you . Myself, another drafter, or a clerk will let you know when a decision has been made. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Typos happen. Understood.  Thank you.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @7&6=thirteen just to confirm that what is in your sandbox now is final? Because I don't see a third request for evidence changes after deadline being accepted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right. That is final. The changes were limited strictly to fixing links. Thank you. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The current sandbox has been copied into the evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the "Target dates" not be changed?
If "The evidence phase has been extended one week to allow the submission of evidence (with diffs) about other editors who should be a party to this case", should the "Target dates" not be changed as well? Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jax 0677 the decision was made to ahve an extra week of evidence before the case opened so the target dates were setup to reflect that week initially. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarify - The evidence phase is staying open 'til July 16? GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Normally the evidence phase would have closed July 2, the workshop July 9, and the target date for the PD would have been July 16. Instead all of those are 1 week later. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that it has been extended to July 16, to include 'non-parties' evidence. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)