Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127
 | This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
| Archive 120 | ← | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cunard at 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Modify to include a topic ban on proposing an article for deletion and turning an article into a redirect
Statement by Cunard
Previous discussions
This was previously discussed in an amendment request closed on 20 April 2024 and on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.
Background
Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.
TenPoundHammer resumed the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact.
Evidence
I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer on 2 March 2024 about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer to stop blanking and redirecting articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.
TenPoundHammer continued to redirect articles on notable topics. Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series (a topic I focus on): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.
Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected three book articles (another topic I focus on): 1, 2, and 3. I reverted the three redirects and added book reviews.
Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable.
On 12 April 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected the television show Las Vegas Garden of Love with the edit summary "unsourced since 2010, time to lose it". I found sources for the article and reverted the redirect. I found two of the sources (The New York Times and Variety) on the first page of a Google search for "Las Vegas Garden of Love ABC". TenPoundHammer previously prodded this same article in May 2022, and another editor contested that prodding ("contest PROD, nom nominated 200 articles in a single day so it's impossible a BEFORE was done for each").
Analysis
Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from.
Blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere.
It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case.
Here are quotes from three arbitrators about the topic ban in the 2022 proposed decision regarding the redirects and and proposed deletion:
- "... This TBAN also fails to remedy the issues that appear to be evident with the use of redirects (see Artw's evidence for examples)." (link)
"... Missing PROD was not intentional on my part but that also can be added." (link)
- See Artw's evidence about issues with redirects.
- "First choice, and my interpretation is that this should extend to PROD, given the evidence, even though it seems like a stretch to call most PRODs a discussion. ..." (link)
- "First choice, extend to PROD." (link)
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs since they are not listed on article alerts or deletion sorting. The suspended topic ban motion would put the onus on editors to frequently review Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer to determine whether the disruptive blank-and-redirects have continued rather than put the onus on TenPoundHammer to make a convincing appeal in the future that the disruptive blank-and-redirects won't continue. I do not want to frequently review TenPoundHammer's contributions as it is time-consuming and leads to responses like this. The disruptive blank-and-redirects happened in 2022 and continued during TenPoundHammer's topic ban appeal. Redirects continued as recently as 6 May here and here, one with an edit summary ("Obvious") that doesn't make it clear that a blank-and-redirect happened. There is no recognition in TenPoundHammer's response here that the blank-and-redirects have been disruptive.
- The motion does not address proposed deletions. TenPoundHammer wrote "I assumed I was already topic-banned from PRODding articles", while an arbitrator wrote in the topic ban appeal, "I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one." I hope that this amendment request can address the status of proposed deletions as it would be best not to need an additional clarification request asking about that.
- I would prefer a motion that adds blank-and-redirects and proposed deletions to the existing topic ban rather than a suspended topic ban. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Primefac wrote, "some like Cunard may feel that any BLAR is too much". This is inaccurate as I routinely do blank-and-redirects without prior discussion. BLARs become disruptive when an editor continues doing numerous controversial BLARs despite being asked to stop. The BLARs are controversial because many of the topics are notable and sources can be found on the first page of a Google search.
- Regarding "repeatedly asking for the hammer to be dropped until they get their desired response", I raised the conduct issue in the topic ban appeal amendment request, but arbitrators did not substantively discuss it. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests indicated that my filing a new amendment request would not have been considered a duplicate. The arbitrators' responses here generally have not called this a duplicate request. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TenPoundHammer
I assumed I was already topic-banned from PRODding articles, so I don't know why that was brought up. (Similarly, I don't know what the ruling is on deprodding but it's historically not been an issue for me, and I personally don't think it would be fair to deny me a chance to say "hey, wait, I can fix this".) Speed has been an issue, as has blunt edit summaries when I redirect something. Lately when I feel there is little to no content to merge, I try to spell out my WP:BEFORE steps in the edit summary when I redirect. I also generally don't unlink the page, to save the hassle if someone like Cunard comes along to revert my redirect and dump in some sources. One reason I don't try to initiate merger discussion is because no matter how hard I try, no one ever seems to respond. Witness Talk:Regis_Philbin#Proposed_merge_of_Joy_Philbin_into_Regis_Philbin, which opened two months ago and has had several reminders, but not a single person has lifted a finger. How long is that discussion going to gather dust? "There is no deadline" doesn't mean "do nothing and hope the problem somehow fixes itself". If I am to be topic-banned from WP:BLARing, then how can I get some action going in merger discussions? Since again, every fucking time I try, nobody acts like I'm even there -- but then two seconds after I give in and finally merge/redirect the damn thing, someone swoops in to revert me. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Star Mississippi
I am Involved here. TPH and I came up together on this project and occasionally ran into one another on country talk pages although it has been some time since we substantively interacted. I also have the utmost respect for Cunard's research at AfD in that they not only say "sources exist" but find and annotate them for participants to assess. This is especially helpful personally in east Asian language sourcing. That said, Cunard's case here is strong. TPH sees it as their duty to clean up the project, but I don't think their strong feelings are backed by our policies, nor is there a pressing need to remove this content. The project will not collapse and these are mostly not BLPs. If they are, someone else can handle it. I believe TPH's topic ban should be expanded to include BLAR which is a form of deletion. I have no strong feelings on PROD personally. Star Mississippi 01:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
S Marshall
Suggest:
- TPH may not redirect more than one article per day.
- TPH may not PROD more than one article per day.
- For the purposes of this restriction a "day" refreshes at midnight UTC.
Statement by Jclemens
- Support expanding the topic ban to BLARs. I really wanted to not do this, but TPH's comments above are very much in WP:IDHT territory. While editors are absolutely allowed to focus on specific aspects of the encyclopedia and its processes, TPH has been here long enough that using Google to assess for sources per BEFORE and including them (even perfunctorily on the talk page for others to edit into the article) rather than redirecting clearly notable topics is a reasonable expectation. Again, BEFORE-ish behavior is neither required nor expected outside TPH's self-chosen context of encyclopedic cleanup. Because using BLARs for deletion is a semi-end-run around the existing topic ban, expecting BEFORE behavior is not a too-restrictive burden. The fact is, TPH has been found to have used other deletion processes without appropriate discretion, and is now shown to have been doing the same thing using a different process. Again, this is not a novel problem, but a topic-banned user who is skating as close as possible to the topic ban and displaying ongoing problematic behavior. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Billed Mammal: This is not a proposal for a general rule. This is a note that TPH has been engaging in less-than-optimal deletion conduct that, had he continued to engage in it over time, could result in a topic ban, in fact did, and TPH has continued to engage in deletion-like behavior within the limits of that topic ban. I'll note that BLAR notes
If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Since TPH is topic banned from AfD, nominating contested BLARs for deletion is off the table. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Billed Mammal: This is not a proposal for a general rule. This is a note that TPH has been engaging in less-than-optimal deletion conduct that, had he continued to engage in it over time, could result in a topic ban, in fact did, and TPH has continued to engage in deletion-like behavior within the limits of that topic ban. I'll note that BLAR notes
Statement by BilledMammal
TPH has been here long enough that using Google to assess for sources per BEFORE and including them (even perfunctorily on the talk page for others to edit into the article) rather than redirecting clearly notable topics is a reasonable expectation.
While a WP:BEFORE search may be a good idea, it isn’t one that there is a consensus to require - and it is one that there shouldn’t be a consensus to require until we place similar requirements, retroactively applying, on the creation of articles.
Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle.
If we’re going to apply FAIT to the deletion of articles we need to first - and retroactively - apply it to their creation, otherwise we will have a situation where massive numbers of articles have been created in violation of FAIT but are almost impossible to address.
Further, I’m not convinced this is a FAIT issue; addressing previous FAIT issues is not itself a FAIT violation, even if done at a similar scale and rate.
Statement by Flatscan
The arbitrators may like to consider the itemized wording of another user's topic ban (linked in Cunard's request) or TenPoundHammer topic banned (2) (did not pass). They both call out article redirection explicitly.
Regarding WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer (2018 community topic ban, linked by Maxim), its closing statement does not mention redirects, and the closer clarified them as excluded within a few weeks.
I found four related diffs – none involving redirects – in Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. They are consistent with WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence#TenPoundHammer has been subject to ANI discussion on multiple occasions.
- Enacted January 2018
- Exception added February 2018
- Reduced/replaced August 2018
- Removed October 2019
Redirecting a page is not deletion.
- WP:Redirect#Redirects that replace previous articles (guideline, shortcut WP:BLAR):
If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted.
- WP:Deletion policy#Redirection (policy, shortcut WP:ATD-R) is a subsection under Alternatives to deletion.
- Cunard was able to revert TenPoundHammer's redirects without adminstrator assistance.
Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I find the examples of WP:BLAR that Cunard presents to be troubling forms of deletion when taken in the full context. Cunard often presents more obscure sources or coverage that can be rather short but that is certainly not the case with several of the examples shown here. As noted in the case WP:BEFORE
is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources.
but for this editor, with this past, the lack of BEFORE when some high quality sourcing was available strikes me as an issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) - TenPoundHammer was topic banned because of disruptive behavior in AfD discussions as well as issues around the closing of discussions. While Cunard has presented a not-unreasonable concern that TPH might not be the best at finding sources for articles, I am not seeing any major issues with conduct around the blank-and-redirect issue; redirects that have been reverted tend to stay reverted, without evidence of argument or backlash. These redirects also appear to be made in good faith. In other words, I do not think we are at the point where the BLAR activity by TenPoundHammer has reached a "disruptive editing" or "conduct-unbecoming" level that would require further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would support expanding the topic ban --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to Primefac's analysis, but I draw a different conclusion. There is an existing topic ban from deletion discussions, and while it is not explicitly "broadly construed", and nor does blanking and redirect truly fall under "discussion", I think there is a reasonable concern raised to do with TenPoundHammer and the deletion process. In a different context, I would be more amenable to treating the situation as not-quite-yet disruptive editing or conduct unbecoming, but considering the existing topic ban, as well as a previous community sanction to ban TenPoundHammer from all deletion activities, I'm in favour of expanding the topic ban, potentially to cover deletion activities similarly to the community sanction. Maxim (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Motion: TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban for blank-and-redirecting (BLARing)
TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on WP:AE, (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at WP:ARCA, with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at WP:ARCA if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted.
- Enacted - HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support (TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban motion)
- No concerns with Barkeep's change in wording. In case it wasn't clear before, I support this motion. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I generally don't like complicated sanctions, but the evidence presented does suggest an issue needing resolution, and jumping straight to an active TBAN doesn't seem warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per my comment below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per my comments elsewhere in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose (TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban motion)
Abstain (TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban motion)
General comments (TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban motion)
- This has been posted here for a long time, and I want to get this moving. TPH seems to have stopped the WP:BLARing behaviour that led to the disruption, as the last instance I can find is May 4. However, I would like to propose a motion to get this closed but also allow for a faster response if this happens again. The idea for this type of motion was suggested by another arbitrator, so I cannot take credit for it:
Other arbitrators feel free to modify the wording or to propose another motion below. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know I said it above but I am not at a point where a sanction is necessary. There is also the issue of deciding what "disruption by BLARing" means; some
like Cunardeditors may feel that any BLAR is too much, where editors like myself may find the current non-response to reverted BLARing to be a perfectly acceptable part of the BOLD editing process. I also do not know if we should open the door for someone repeatedly asking for the hammer to be dropped until they get their desired response. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Updated, unfair to Cunard to call them out like this. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) - I've done some wordsmithing here. I think I can live with this restriction on this editor given their track record with deletion and related processes (which I see as including BLAR). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think this a proportionate sanction and am willing to support it. I think some of the provided examples aren't completely damning-- I have some more expertise in music and I would say the majority of the redirects done for non-notable low charting singles and comps make sense, but there's enough questionable ones all in all to impose this given the history. My advice to TPH would be to practice merging more-- for example, I think that a redirect of Dice: Undisputed-- a minor reality TV series-- to the biography of Clay is reasonable if the cited sources were used to contextualize it within his biography. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)