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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ARBDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Target dates: Opened 18 June 2022 • Evidence closes 9 July 2022 • Workshop closes 16 July 2022 • Proposed decision to be posted by 23 July 2022

Scope: Conduct in deletion-related editing, with a specific focus on named parties.

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & Dreamy Jazz (Talk) & Firefly (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk) & CaptainEek (Talk) & Wugapodes (Talk)

Case opened on 10:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Case closed on 21:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

  • @Robert McClenon: the word counts for preliminary statements (what we're doing here) are counted separately than word counts for evidence. If the case is accepted you can definitely ask for a word count extension at that point from whomever is designated as the drafting arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/1/0)[edit]

  • I'm not generally that keen on cases about individuals, excepting advanced rights holders as there's no other place to handle. That said, there are long term issues, and so I can see that a case may be needed. If consensus is that we need two cases, so be it, but I'd prefer this was merged into one request. Otherwise, awaiting statements. WormTT(talk) 09:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm tilting to Accept a single case, around behaviour at article deletion. The three individuals who have been most discussed should be parties. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have only read part of 1 section of the ANI discussion (Thinking outside the box: raise the stakes for JPL's redirects and Lugnuts' reverts) and so I have a lot of reading to do. I want to be transparent about what my thinking is going into that reading. I think I got my vote wrong in the November 2021 Conduct in Articles for Deletion case request. I voted with the majority to decline, but future events suggested a case would have been helpful. I see the issues in that request to be related but distinct to these case requests. I don't want to repeat that mistake and I also don't want to overcorrect in the other direction (accepting unnecessarily) but that request will impact my thinking here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lugnuts: please email ( the committee any relevant private evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Joe Roe: obviously the committee always invites the community to participate before the draft decision through the evidence phase and (for most cases) the workshop. Are you thinking about something beyond normal procedures with your comment? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Joe Roe I think if a broader scope is taken that notification to WT:AFD and perhaps other similar talk pages (i.e. WT:PROD) should be done. I do not think it appropriate for ArbCom to solicit statements from specific non-parties. So it would be on the "editors and admins active in deletion" to participate but we should give them a reasonable chance of finding out that there is a case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm open to considering single or multiple cases. @Lugnuts: I think your statement would be helpful here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I much appreciate the statements and am continuing to give them a lot of thought. I have not yet decided whether I prefer a single case or multiple cases, but I am more open to holding multiple cases than it seems other arbs are inclined to be. I am worried about carefully tailoring the scope to avoid (a) an unmanageably large and misshapen case and also (b) constraining our ability to tackle the actual problem here. I don't think we've reached a good scope statement yet. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Accept. The consensus of my colleagues is to accept a single case, and while I am unsure about whether that is the best way forward, I don't think a lengthy discussion about that is worth it. I will support a single case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In regards to both, I'm still grappling with whether the community is unable to handle this. Given the history of blocks and restrictions, it seems like oversight is adequate though probably not perfect; why are blocks and editing restrictions as regular admin and community actions not feasible? Reading through the various ANI threads, I do agree that a structured and systematic look at the area could help reduce problems and encourage more uninvolved editors to participate in the area. So I'm of two minds at the moment. I'd appreciate more comments on why this has gone beyond the community's ability to resolve. Wug·a·po·des 15:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate the thoughts so far. I'm leaning towards accepting. JayBeeEll, not to put you on the spot, but since you mentioned needing more than three parties, did you have any in mind? Looking through some of the discussions you (and others) linked it seems like we'd need to be careful of having the scope balloon. Wug·a·po·des 05:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Accept along the same lines as WTT. I've been looking through the discussions linked here and the case declined in November 2021, and it's clear that this is a recurring problem that would benefit from a systematic review. I'm still not sure about what solutions might be useful, but even just collecting and synthesizing concerns around these two or three editors would help reduce how much needs to be considered in future community decision-making processes. Wug·a·po·des 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Folly Mox, no, that is not possible today. phab:T306574 exists apparently since a few months ago, and something like my suggestion in phab:T230653#5549304 would be interesting for this. (There are several other tasks near to T230653 that all discuss the issue of lint errors in signatures and being able to enforce that users have de-linted signatures, and the system does now enforce it for some kinds of lint. Not all, including outdated HTML, so it would require community consensus here to enable it for outdated HTML. I am still reading so I do not know if outdated HTML is relevant in this case.) --Izno (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I finished my read of the background information last night and I think there is something actionable for ArbCom here. But what that something is, is less clear to me. I think when there are multiple AN/ANI threads that sprawl about the same topic over a relatively concentrated period of time that indicates that the community's process isn't working and the more structured and more final method of ArbCom is appropriate to reach an acceptable outcome. Fram has presented clear evidence of that for Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert and even the "the case request has been filed" has not been enough for the community to find consensus (as it sometimes does). Others have asserted in their statements that it may be appropriate to include others. However, these assertions have not been backed up by any diffs which makes it hard for me to action them - in fact as far as I can tell the only person besides Fram to offer diffs has been ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ around Lugnuts and sigs. So I will be voting to accept, but am holding off for the moment to give those who think there's a case beyond these two people to come with diffs to show it so I can vote to accept with what I think the scope to be. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Accept. I think there are two related concepts I see evidence of having something appropriate for ArbCom to consider: behavior at AfD and the specific behavior of a few editors around article creation and deletion. I support a scope of both. IN terms of what specific editors, I think there is clear evidence for Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert. I'm not really opposed to Ten Pound Hammer, but am more reluctant given that there is currently clear consensus for a new restriction that remains unclosed at ANI. I also think we may need to do something similar to Iranian Politics where we add parties during the case if there is specific evidence presented of issues within the broader scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not sure on the merits myself but I think in the interest of transparency and to allow community feedback it's worth noting that the committee is considering an interaction ban, for length of the case, between Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert. This would be as an injunction as part of opening the case; to be made permanent it would then have to be approved as a remedy in the final decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept I went back and re-read my vote from the last AfD case request, seven months ago. At the time I expressed hope that the close of the ANI thread would solve the problem, and that the case request would put the AfD regulars on notice that standards needed to improve. As I said: Perhaps AfD contributors might remember to control themselves and act in the spirit of Wikipedia, for they may find our solution to be bitter medicine. Well it seems that AfD has not controlled itself, and it is time for Doctor ArbCom to write a prescription. I would like a single combined case that includes not only the editors from the current requests, but also the editors in question from last year's request. But I want the focus to be not on editors, but on AfD itself, and how its processes do or do not work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mhawk10 There's usually a bit of delay after passing the vote threshold because we have to pick drafters, choose parties, and hammer out the scope. That usually happens on our email list though, since its more of a brainstorming session, and requires us to juggle private concerns like "What are the Arb's real world schedules in the next month" and "Is Eek sailing to the Bahamas and therefore can't be a drafter" :P But on the more public side of things, y'all can be helpful even after the accept threshold by suggesting parties and scope. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Moneytrees: the primary focus will likely be that of JPL and Lugnuts (and potentially TPH), but by not specifically making it about those two it leaves the door open for broader behavioural issues to be recognised and potentially remedied, such as the "AFD DS regime" floated by Levivich. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I am not in any way suggesting that there will be DS created as a result of this case, but rather an example remedy that would not be directly related to any of the parties involved and related to the topic area more broadly. If we were focusing purely on those two editors with no other leeway, our remedies would likely only include those editors. Primefac (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Accept (noting that this is made post-merge of the two case requests). Primefac (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a note, my primary interest in this case request is to look at the named parties; I am not necessarily gunning for or expecting to expand too much further, but I would prefer to leave the door open for larger issues to be brought forward. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept as one case. I'm inclined to include TPH as a party as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept as one case; I haven't yet gotten through all the reading, but it's clearly gotten a little out of hand. Enterprisey (talk!)
  • Comment from the JPL request which got vanished in the merge: I think this case request is reasonable to make, and I think there is sufficient background here that a case could be taken looking into JPL's behavior, but based on a review of the threads linked, I am not sure that the community has been unable to manage the issues that have popped up with respect to JPL, with only this latest discussion still unresolved. One use a case could have would be to add structure to an examination of the behavior that has generally been lacking in the community's discussions about this editor, but then ArbCom in a decision potentially ends up in the position of pre-empting a community that doesn't look finished with handling this editor's behavior. I am inclined both to accept and decline this request as a result, so count me as presently neutral. --Izno (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Reading into the others now as well, and it also doesn't appear that the community is unable to handle Lugnuts' behavior, again based on separate discussions having been closed successfully with sanctions. Ditto for TPH. I actually don't think there's a case here at all with these actors (at least as scoped to deletion). I'm a decline.
    • As for a larger AfD topic, I don't think ArbCom should be touching that as out of our scope. We're here to solve specific conduct issues, not prescribe medication for a discussion that has been ongoing for two decades. I'm not a full decline there, but I'm definitely not an accept. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept I'm dusting off the cobwebs after being inactive for a bit (thanks, COVID), but just wanted to signal my support for proceeding with a single case. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept I've kind of been hanging back on this one and seeing what develops, and so a little late, but I do see a case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.


Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. 

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Healthy and unhealthy conflict[edit]

2) Conflict is unavoidable and an inherent part of processes like the bold, revert, discuss cycle and deletion discussions. These processes work effectively when editors engage in healthy conflict by debating ideas, openly providing information, and seeking mutual understanding of an issue. Sniping criticism, ad hominem arguments, and incivility are harmful to other editors and the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. While healthy conflict is essential to building an encyclopedia, editors who engage in unhealthy conflict may be sanctioned.

Passed 12 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


3) Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

4) Proposed deletion (PROD) is a streamlined process for nominating an article for deletion. It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. Proposed deletions are subject to the deletion policy, which requires that alternatives to deletion are considered before nomination. A prior search for more sources to establish notability is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeoning (alt)[edit]

5.1) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Passed 10 to 2 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Battleground conduct[edit]

6) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeated behavior[edit]

7) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute: Mass creation of articles[edit]

1) A locus of dispute centers around the conduct of named parties in the mass creation of stubs and how named parties and the wider community handle those articles in the deletion process.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Locus of dispute: Conduct at Articles for Deletion[edit]

2) A locus of dispute centers around the conduct of named parties at Articles for Deletion (AfD).

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


3) 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) has been named in four large Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) discussions since February 2021 (Feb 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Jun 2022). The February 2021 thread was closed with a warning for personal attacks and hostility towards others; the October 2021 thread was closed with a final warning. The November and June threads were closed recommending Arbitration to the editors as ANI was unable to solve the issue. Since the final warning, 7&6=thirteen leveled personal attacks at Articles for deletion/New Chapter towards HighKing and MrsSnoozyTurtle and displayed a battleground mentality, particularly during Article Rescue Squadron discussions (e.g. November 2021, December 2021, & June 2022).

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert sanction history[edit]

4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) has been topic banned by the community from nominating more than one article per day at AfD (Mar 2017) and from religious articles (Sep 2021). He has been blocked one time for violating each of these topic bans, though each block was ended early. In August 2021 he was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, which was lifted twelve days later with an explicit warning about deletion efforts with Category:1922 births pages (Sept 2021). Since 2021, he was also named in extensive ANI discussions in February 2021, closed with no action, April 2021, in which he apologized for comments he made, July 2021, closed with no action, December 2021, in which he was warned about potential topic ban violations, and June 2022, which was filed shortly before this case was opened.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert deletion conduct[edit]

5) Johnpacklambert has a history of making many rapid !votes in AfD discussions (Northamerica100 and Vaulter evidence). His judgement in deciding when to boldly redirect, when to PROD, and when to nominate an article for deletion, especially in regards to articles created by Lugnuts, was criticized in the ANI thread that preceded the opening of this case.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


6) By one measure, Lugnuts (talk · contribs) has created the most articles of any editor with over 93 thousand article creations (S Marshall evidence). Most of these were stubs, and relatively few have been expanded to longer articles (Cryptic evidence). This led to Lugnuts's autopatrolled right being removed (April 2021) and to Lugnuts being topic-banned by the community from creating new articles with fewer than 500 words (Dec 2021). Lugnuts has not offered any substantial help in addressing these content concerns and has sometimes removed a PROD only to vote redirect at a subsequent AfD discussion (June 2022 ANI BilledMammal evidence). Lugnuts has been blocked for conduct at AfD in March 2022 and April 2022 and was topic banned by the community from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page in February 2022.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


7) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) was topic banned from all deletion activities in January 2018, which was repealed in October 2019. Concerns over TenPoundHammer's ability to close deletion discussions led to a community topic ban in June 2022. He has regularly nominated pages for deletion, using both PROD and Articles for deletion, and participated in many other AfD discussions (June 2022 ANI, S Marshall evidence). TenPoundHammer engaged in disruptive behavior in AfD discussions (e.g. April 2022, May 2022, June 2022) and gave inappropriate notifications during a series of Postage stamp lists (LaundryPizza03).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass nominations at Articles for Deletion[edit]

8) There is no community consensus on how to handle the consideration of mass nominations of articles at Articles for Deletion. This has created conflict in the community about how to respond to Lugnuts' article creation (e.g. April 2021, Dec 2021, Feb 2022, June 2022) and to changes in sports notability, first with changes to Olympic athletes and later to a change to the general Sports notability guideline (e.g June 2022 ANI, June 2022 Village Pump, Lugnuts preliminary statement, Ingratis preliminary statement, Masem preliminary statement, North8000 preliminary statement).

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion[edit]

9) Partly in response to articles nominated for deletion at scale, editors interested in deletion or a particular topic have felt a need to participate in dozens of discussions at a time. This has led to low quality participation, where editors sometimes appeared to not fully research an article topic before leaving a comment, editors would re-use rationale at multiple pages, and editors would leave comments on many deletion discussions in a short period of time (Northamerica1000 evidence, GiantSnowman evidence). Further, one comparison of AfD in 2017 and 2022 found a similar number of nominations but a smaller number of AfD participants which exacerbates these problems (Liz evidence). This has left AfD susceptible to spammers and others who sock (MER-C evidence) and caused administrators to rely on more weighting of comments when closing, including unwritten conventions and personal knowledge of editors, in order to compensate (JoelleJay evidence, Joe Roe evidence).

Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Battleground behavior at Articles for Deletion[edit]

10) Individual editors may have some inclination to vote delete more, or keep more, in Articles for Deletion discussions and these editors are sometimes labeled as "inclusionists" and "deletionists". Such labels can lead to editors taking sides and otherwise engaging in battleground behavior (Scottywong evidence, FeydHuxtable evidence, Carrite evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


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.

7&6=thirteen topic banned[edit]

2) 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 12 to 1 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert topic banned[edit]

4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 13 to 0 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts warned[edit]

6) Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior. If Lugnuts should engage in disruptive behavior related to deletion, broadly construed, an uninvolved administrator may block him (in accordance with the standard enforcement provision) or impose on him a topic ban for up to one year.

Passed 11 to 2 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts topic banned[edit]

6.1) Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles. This remedy supersedes his December 2021 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 1 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts banned[edit]

7) Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)[edit]

9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstentions at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

11) The Arbitration Committee requests comment on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.

  • The request for comment (RfC) will take place at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale and the discussion will be moderated by editor(s) appointed by the Arbitration Committee.
  • The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented.
  • The moderator(s) will also be responsible for supervising the discussions, and ensuring comments remain relevant and focused. To maintain decorum, moderator(s) may collapse comments, move comments to the talk page, remove comments entirely, ban editors from the process, or take other reasonable actions necessary to maintain decorum.
  • The RfC will be announced at the articles for deletion talk page, the Arbitration Noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village pump (policy). Comments will be accepted for 30 days, and the request for comment will be advertised on the centralized discussion template.
  • The request for comment will be closed by a panel of three editors with experience closing discussions and who will be appointed by the Arbitration Committee prior to the start of the RfC. The closing panel should summarize the main points brought up in the discussion and evaluate what consensus, if any, exists within the community.
  • Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Passed 9 to 2 at 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.