It was perplexing to see editor 13 added as a party. He's not a high volume editor like the other 3, nor does he appear on ANI anywhere near as frequently. The last ANI against 13 all but exonerated him, and was much closer to ending in a boomerang for the filer. 13 had generally conducted himself well at the AfD which triggered the ANI, improving the article and not cluttering up the page with lengthy analyses for the WP:GNG pass, which had already been provided by others. Im now assuming the committee added 13 as you see the benefit in giving him a more official exoneration like you did in the Portals case. I'm happy to step up to submit evidence pointing to that remedy.

Have to say though I have mixed feelings about this. I hope this case isn't going to end with a crushing defeat for the delete side as was the case with portals. Many of who argued for the pro portal editors also specifically said we didnt want to see severe sanctions like desysops for the anti portal side. It's a huge mistake to think one can improve the atmosphere at AfD by severe sanctions against the most prolific Deletionists. The Del v Inc tension is a feature, not a problem that can be removed. Even the most staunch inclusionists recognise there needs to be editors on the delete side, and removing the most extreme editors just means a different set of editors will sit at the extreme. So I hope we wont be seeing sanctions more severe than cautions or short time limited topic bans. The latest ANI against 13 should already serve as a strong waring to Deletionists that the community won't accept the view that improving articles at AfD is bad. The WMF inclusion of a prohibition against the "repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content" in the UCoC is another useful check against deletion. It could be counter productive to send too strong a message against deletionists, who are a very necessary part of the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of arbitration is to take a careful structured look at evidence the community provides. If there's not evidence that merits a remedy against a party none will be issued. The most recent example of that happening is our most recent case where one of the parties had no remedy passed naming them. The relative prominence of inclusion and deletion varies over time and I am confident that those who think of themselves on the inclusion side are just as worried about an unbalanced outcome. But again the Arbs are going to do our best to consider the evidence the community provides and craft appropriate principles, findings of facts, and remedies. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear Barkeep. Maybe I'm worrying without reason especially with yourself, Wugs and the Captain as drafting arbs. But the portal case also had 3 good drafters, and while the exoneration was most welcome, it was quite a shock that it had the desysop & 2 unnecessary & high demotivational FoFs. Recently it seems like there's excessively harsh sanctions been handed out left right and centre, like the run of recent permabans on ANI, or in the outer world quality scientists & journalists with long near flawless careers being fired for a single accidental spoonerism. Anyway, I've said my bit now, I'll be trying not to look at this case again until the conclusion, these things are just too stressful even with Arbs like yourself running the show. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am perplexed. Am I now a target? Is User:HighKing, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle and the other deletion participants in the dock? Could they be? Or is this an informational and instructional and policy exercise? Is this a reopening of closed chapters?

If it is an omnibus inquiry, are there any boundaries? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen the arbs are unsure what scope the final decision will take - it could be broad or it could end up being focused on a few specific editors. So yes it is an omnibus inquiry into what the conduct is in deletion-related editing. It is also a focused examination of some specific editors. Right now HighKing and MrsSnoozyTurtle are not parties to the case. However, the evidence phase has been extended by a week specifically to allow people to present evidence to demonstrate why other editors should be named as a party. A recentish example of this happening was Vanmonde's evidence in IRANPOL which resulted in some of those listed being added as parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add User:Mztourist to the mix. Mass deletions have been a part of his modus operandi. And his continued conduct at AFDs has been extraordinary. If the point of this is to bring peace and harmony to the AFD process, spurious nominations have got to stop.

Moreover, I have been repeatedly subjected to vexatious ANIs by an organized group. This becomes inevitably deletionists as the suspected protagonists.

I have always been restrained in my answers. And my responses were always measured and nonaccusatory. I never responded in kind; I never filed a complaint with ANI. This looks like a continuation. If this is a Star chamber, then my participation will not benefit the process or change the result.

The lack of any specifics and charges is concerning. Elemental due process would seem to require that. Trying to respond to an amorphous and nonspecific invitation is an exercise in futility.

And if you want me gone, so be it. Let's not spend time at the dance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were added as a party to this case based on comments (with supporting evidence) submitted during the case request. However, there is no preordained conclusion. I think you must have also missed the part where I noted that in our most recent case a named party ended up with no remedy (in other words not even a warning). In our second most recent case the same thing also occurred (well actually two but GeneralNotability kind of doesn't count). Feyd has already posted evidence suggesting there is not a problem with your contributions, you are welcome to do the same. Finally, you are also welcome to post evidence (with diffs and/or links) to support the idea that the editors you've named here should be parties to the case as well but just naming them on this talk page is insufficient to that happening. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comforted User:Barkeep49's response. I appreciate the attempt. You say evidence is required, and that a mere listing of names is not evidence. I agree.

Gathering evidence will take time. If I am making a list of transgressors and transgressions, then I will provide evidence.

I did not ask for this honor, but ought to be given some courtesy.

Conversely, I would like to see the complaint here that concerns me. And would demand a bill of particulars if that is possible. What is it that whomever say I did? And what evidence did they provide?

Respectfully submitted, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee cases are not legal proceedings so there are no bills of particulars, indictments, or similar such documents. Instead, there is community presented evidence. So far that is just what is listed in the case request I linked above. Further evidence will be added on the evidence page which is where the evidence from Feyd I mentioned in my last reply is located. You can read more about how an arbitration case works here (and the 3 sections which follow it). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this case involves, but would simply note that User:7&6=thirteen's random aspersion against me above is part of their continued modus operandi and I think we should accept their offer of "if you want me gone, so be it". Mztourist (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask that User:Mztourist be joined as a party. I will provide reasons and evidence; which will be more than an aspersion It will take time. His remarks here and his overall conduct at AFDs are part of the larger problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to suggest that HighKing or MrsSnoozyTurtle are added as case parties. In fact, in the absence of more evidence, I'd oppose it, simply because I cannot find evidence at the noticeboards that they have been involved in conduct that the community is incapable of reaching a consensus towards. In your case, 7&6=thirteen, I can see many, many, many, many threads where you are the main subject, plus the frankly bizarre rallying cry on WT:ARS means my decision to suggest you as a case party is justified. As somebody who prefers to improve articles instead of deleting them, I have to say your conduct, and treating the Article Rescue Squadron as (paraphrasing) the "saviour of the enemy deletionists" harms everyone who likes to rescue articles as it brings that idea into disrepute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator's note: Nothing in the discussion above (as of this posting) crosses any lines in my view. But I do want to remind everyone that ArbCom cases are, with-in the realm of Wikipedia, fairly high stakes and can cause stress for participants, especially named parties. This stress is made worse because what happens is unfamiliar to many and there are several key differences from how Wikipedia operates that can cause confusion and increase the stress. These conditions are why sometimes discussions are made into sectioned discussion rather than Wikipedia's typical in-line discussion. So I would just ask everyone to consider whether, in this context, a particular comment is going to help dispute resolution (which is different given that the burden of this resolution now falls on us Arbs rather than something the parties can just do on their own) or whether it's going to just keep the stress level high among editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 I agree that article improvement is always a laudable goal. And a preferred result to deletion. At WP:ARS my first order of business has always been article improvement. I have taken many articles from AFD to the main page at DYK. Perhaps you've overlooked that.

And for that I have been singled out by those who do not appreciate the effort. My voting at AFDs is very limited. I have been told that I "spammed" WP:Hey, WP:Before and WP:GNG. That eliminates a lot of legitimate policy arguments to keep articles.

And I have been vocal in protesting the constant them of certain users, who take it upon themselves to give a "Note to closer" accusing WP:ARS of caanvassing. There are scores of examples. That is one reason why I seldom post articles at WP:ARS list; it predictably draws fire. And User:MrsSnoozyTurtle will predictably repeat the accusation and then amplify it with WP:Griefing. This is despite the suggested notices of posting at the project page being placed in the AFD discussion.

Your made up misquotes are no reflection of my intent or conduct. Indeed, I have always hoped that deletionists and inclusionists and everyone in between could improve Wikipedia together along with everyone else. There are no enemies here. All editors are presumably created equal. We are presumably all here to build the best encyclopedia. It is the process of doing that which needs adjustment. And character assassination like yours is not helpful. If you have evidence that the arbitrators should consider, file it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed. This motion does two things:
   First, it acknowledges and ratifies the authority of the moderators to hold two RfCs and provides for the closing panel to stay in place unless otherwise requested by a panel member. We did not have enough volunteers to fill two closing panels, but we recognize that closing two RfCs is more than the closing panel members agreed to, so hopefully this motion means we have enough people without forcing anyone to stay on to fill a role they didn't expect to have to fill. I personally would not have held two separate RfCs, but it is the decision that the moderators reached, and it seems like it would be very disruptive to require only one RfC now, after much has been discussed on that assumption.
   Second, the motion reaffirms that the RfC's results can be modified by the community in a future RfC and removes ArbCom's exclusive role over WP:CLOSECHALLENGEs. These points were raised at WT:ACN. The RfC results could always have been amended by further RfC, but it doesn't hurt to clarify it explicitly. And I don't feel strongly about ArbCom's ability to hear CLOSECHALLENGEs, but it seems important to others in the community; personally, I have every confidence in the appointed closers and am not concerned about the possibility of a disputed close. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sure. Enterprisey (talk!) 14:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Absolutely. Cabayi (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Maxim_(talk) 20:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Clarifies things we've said elsewhere. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. I opposed this remedy upfront (for reasons I gave in the case), and although I don't object to the change I would rather not support the RfC retroactively. Worm^TT(talk) 14:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. Recuse I am involved in the RfC. - Donald Albury 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Community comments[edit]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Thanks to all who participated and coordinated. In ending this, I want to clarify I don't see this as a failure. In fact I see that this process has been quite successful. Ending it now is a recognition that it has served its usefulness. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. I wish I shared the optimism of my colleague CaptainEek but I am disappointed that the core issue ArbCom identified never got to the discussion point. I think it's clear at this point that it won't get there either despite lots of time, thought, and care particularly from the moderators but also the community at large. I don't think it was a mistake to try this but before ever supporting such a remedy again in the future I'd want to make sure that committee had strong consensus about why this one didn't work and felt reasonably confident that another attempt wouldn't have those pitfalls. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Izno (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per my comments below — Wug·a·po·des 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions[edit]

• Floquenbeam, give or take. Besides "this remedy didn't end up working", we had issues finding both moderators and closers, we didn't get the participation expected in the first one, and it's been 6 months since the motion passed and the community still hasn't had the opportunity to discuss the issues that prompted the remedy. The actual RFC that we wanted has not, indeed, happened. Izno (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not vote on the remedy in the case and had little to nothing to do with the coordinating on our end, largely because I expected it would more or less end this way, but at the same time I didn't want to get in the way of it because it could have ended up being more impactful. I think a key takeaway for the community in the event that this passes is simply that the committee is getting out of the way here, as opposed to getting in the way of further community-based discussions of the content side of these issues. I think Rhododendrites comments below are a fair description of how this went, and although I find their counter proposal is interesting, it probably will not be seen as valid by the community. I would therefore again mention the restrictive RFC format I developed for WP:PC/RFC2012. I see a number of parallels here, this format is not meant to be used in a "normal" RFC, it is designed to force a usable result in cases where multiple prior RFCs with more traditional formats failed to do so. The issue is broken down to its absolute core issues and mutually exclusive options are developed, and users have to pick one and only one of the the presented options to support. No new proposals may be added while discussion of the core proposals is ongoing. This succeeded in forcing a usable result, and from there we were able to move on to even more smaller RFCs to settle the details. It isn't the end of the process, but it is a way to get a process moving forward instead of stagnating and festering forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll offer some reflections on why I think this remedy did not achieve its main goals. The first main goal was to incentivize the community to fix policy issues that led to the inciting case. This is not an uncommon remedy when we see conduct issues in a case that arose from conflicts over the interpretation of vague or conflicting policies. Often the remedy takes the shape of a recommendation but in practice these recommendations are not always taken up or effective. The second goal was to improve on the recommendation framework: how do we actually get an RfC to happen and not let the issue fester due to lack of organizing interest? The attempt here was to have the committee (who is recommending the RfC anyway) take on some of the overhead by identifying people to (1) develop questions and run the RfC (2) close the RfC and (3) handle complaints in a centralized and timely manner. These were, and I think still are, outstanding questions that a future remedies in this genre will need to contend with, but for various reasons I think this attempt did not meet those goals to a sufficient degree.
  I think the attempt was harmed by various factors but the major ones being (1) unequal distribution of labor leading to (2) poor management and oversight ultimately resulting in (3) terminal scope creep.
  1. Unequal distribution of labor: as was mentioned by Izno, we had serious issues in recruiting editors for roles of manager and closer. Neither of these are small amounts of work, especially in the context of major policy discussions. We had discussions regarding how many moderators to appoint, for example, and I think we rightly avoided a solo moderator, but due to issues finding even two, I think we missed hitting what (in hindsight) probably should have been the optimal number of 3. I say optimal because this experience showed that 2 moderators fails too easily. If a single moderator needs to take a break because of family or work commitments, then the other is saddled with all of the work. This is not only unfair, but unsustainable, and I think we saw this happen a number of times during the process. Internally, I believe one goal in appointing me as "liaison" was to get that number closer to 3, but (and I said this internally) personally I was uncomfortable acting in that capacity as an arbitrator. One of the minor goals of this structure was to avoid having ArbCom involved in the process as much as possible, so having an arbitrator-moderator seemed to go against that point. In the future arbitrators should identify moderators before implementing the remedy, ensure that there are at least 3 such moderators, and maybe be less conservative in having arbitrators support moderators by taking more of their workload when needed.
  2. Poor management and oversight: the unequal distribution of labor meant that managers had less time to consider, discuss, and implement decisions. A single person running a whole RfC is already spread thin, and expecting that they be in constant contact with the committee is obviously unrealistic which is why they are appointed for their experience and judgment. So decisions are made in the moment, based in part on community input, but as often happens with such decision, there are other decisions which (with the benefit of time, deliberation, or hindsight) might have been suboptimal. The committee, having these benefits, occasionally got questions or had concerns which led to differences in opinion on what (if any) advice to give. While I (personally) was in favor of a very hands-off approach to oversight, this was not a universal opinion. The thinking being that, because any sanctions levied were arbitration enforcement sanctions and the outcome appealable to us, we had a duty to be at least somewhat active in overseeing the process. This internal difference in perspective meant that advice for the moderators did not always come quickly, or could contradict advice previously given. This put moderators in a bind---walk back advice already given to the community or go against the advice of arbitrators. This (rightly, I think) led to some frustration from moderators and arbitrators, gradually harming morale until both parties lost resolve to continue. In the future, arbitrators should clarify what level of oversight is expected before implementing a remedy so that advice can be given quickly and consistently when requested. Increasing the number of moderators, as mentioned previously, will likewise ensure that more people are available to bounce ideas and deliberate so that no one person feels like major decisions (and criticism) rest on their shoulders alone.
  3. Scope creep: I think this all contributed to the remedy expanding beyond its original scope which is what ultimately doomed it. The inciting case was about deletion and mass deletion in particular. The remedy was targeted at deletion, and the intent was to have a single RfC on that topic to help resolve the underlying issues that precipitated the case. The questions were to be figured out at moderator discretion prior to the RfC, but due to a poor project definition on our part and a glut of work for the moderators in the first place, it was decided to expand the scope to two RfCs: one to develop questions, and one to resolve them. This delayed the project, garnered little participation, and drained human resources on a process which was preliminary and not solvent. This includes tiring the moderators, creating additional work for closers, and committee-internal friction on how to resolve the definitional ambiguity. Ultimately we decided to specify that an RfC to develop questions was acceptable, but this opened the door to further modifications, including a potential third RfC on article creation which is clearly beyond the original scope, and would require further human resources that were barely enough for a second RfC. In the future, the remedy scope should be clearly defined (ideally in consult with the pre-selected moderators recommended previously) and that scope should not change after implementation except in truly extraordinary circumstances. Additionally, future remedies may want to define the process in more detail, including the RfC format taking in to consideration previous methods. Beeblebrox points to WP:PC/RFC2012 which (in hindsight) may have worked well here; a format like WP:AHRFC which was ArbCom initiated has also been shown to work well.

I think there's more that could be said, but those are what I see as the major lessons to learn from this attempt. In some sense, I do agree with CaptainEek that this wasn't a complete failure, but its achievements were marginal at best. The biggest success, I think, is ensuring that the conversation stated. There are questions; there are people with interest; there are organizing discussions to draw on in the future. At the very least, despite the issues identified above, it has provided some activation energy which hopefully is enough for the community to continue the process to some conclusion. At this point however, it's clear that nothing good will come from the Committee's continued involvement so it is best that we bow out. I share the sentiment of Barkeep49 that this was worth trying, and I think it's good that the Committee is able to admit when and reflect on why new ways of solving problems have failed. The problems we face are difficult and growing more complex by the year, so we need to be willing to try, fail, and learn if we are going to develop the tools we need to meet the challenges of Wikipedia's next 20 years. — Wug·a·po·des 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion[edit]

• Sorry, you all seem to agree so maybe I should just shut up and leave you alone, but could someone briefly (1-2 sentence) explain the problem? As near as I can tell, the preliminary "mass article creation" RFC happened, but the "mass AFD" RFC never happened? Is that the problem, or am I confused? Couldn't someone just start the "mass AFD" RFC now? Or is the idea that ArbCom-mandated RFC's don't really work, and you figure a "mass AFD" RFC will happen thru the community? or maybe it already happened and I just didn't see it? There's not a lot of context in this motion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first RfC happened in the sense that a lot of people wrote a lot of words, but not in the sense that it did what it needed to do. The big problem IMO was that we never solidified a definition of "article creation at scale", but proceeded with voting on rules that would apply to "article creation at scale". There's also the problem that the RfC came out of a case that drew the attention of all the "higher standards for articles" vs. "all content is good content" hard-liners. Because the first RfC failed to address mass creation of articles, any effort to create create/change rules for deletion of mass created articles is going to have a big problem (the idea of "deletion at scale" does have applications beyond dealing with mass created articles, but that's the context the RfC arose from, so that will be an essential part of it). It was a worthy experiment for ArbCom to mandate an RfC like this, and I appreciate the efforts by the moderators and others who spent their time on it, but the experience seems like it should dissuade arbs from going this route in the future unless there's an extremely clear question to be answered. As a side note, I'd love to see an experiment with one of these high-profile, factionalized RfCs as follows: run it again, and don't allow anyone who participated the first time to do anything but leave talk page comments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So... for those questions that were saved by the moderators for a mass-deletion RfC, what is to come of them? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone is free to pick up the baton and continue with discussions or create an RfC, if they wish. The arbitration committee is just rescinding its remedy as being the impetus for discussion. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]