![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I know the page is only semi-protected, but it says not to edit it, so here goes:
I'd like to request that part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions be rephrased (without changing its meaning)
From:
An injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favor of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support.
To:
An injunction is considered to have passed when it is supported by at least four net votes.
Phrasing borrowed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings
Reason: It reads really weirdly in its current form, and its not consistent with the rest of the page.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 08:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.( Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures). However, given that this would not qualify as a "significant or substantive modification," what would be the procedure to change it (hypothetically)? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 08:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the correct procedure for requesting that a new article be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator to determine whether it is construed to be within an area of conflict or not and if so to tag it and set the appropriate level of protection?-- John Cline ( talk) 15:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Are there any defined statute of limitations in arbitration procedures? For example, may an administrator be desysoped because of an incident happening ten years ago?-- GZWDer ( talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I'd like to request that an edit be made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Editors restricted. This is believed to be an uncontroversial edit that does not change the meaning of the page, but only the format of a specific link.
Specifically, please change:
::::''Modifed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Motion_.28Eastern_European_mailing_list.29] on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)''
to
::::''Modifed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Motion_.28Eastern_European_mailing_list.29 motion] on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)''
This would change the URL's text from [56]
to motion
, making it consistent with the rest of the page.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dlohcierekim's edit of 17:31 has been posted twice. 2A00:23C0:7983:8301:10E9:F80:9F3F:2269 ( talk) 17:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, these things just bug me:
In the "lede" of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ, please change
[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=608966072 motion]
to
[[Special:Permalink/608966072#Motion (exemption regarding ancient sexuality)|motion]]
This is believed to be an uncontroversial edit that does not change the meaning of the page, but only the format of a specific link; the new link would be in the same format as the other motions listed with it, and would, like the other links, link to the specific section with the motion.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I propose to remove all aliases except former usernames from the list (real names in particular), as real names are 1. nowhere complete, 2. make finding of a specific user more difficult, and 3. don't have a useful propose (as it's usually not the apperence of their signatures).-- GZWDer ( talk) 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
We're seeing a lot of requests coming through RfPP regarding Pakistan and also sometimes India, not just today but for the last week or two. It is my assessment that editing in the area of ARBIPA is heating up. If any ball needs to be got rolling, consider this my contribution.
Best regards,
Samsara 16:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
for that topic within the last year. About 95% of the time when I see something in one of these "your ethnicity/country/religion/whatever versus mine" pissing matches that makes me consider an AN report, I find that the person who needs to be brought up doesn't qualify. I've also learned that non-admins leaving the alert nearly always increases drama rather than reduces it, so it's really up to youse-all with the fancy user bit to template these people programmatically so they're not "immune to prosecution". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
docs, though that needs to be clearer), or going to some wikiproject talk page and grandstanding about how someone just "attacked" and "threatened" them and shouldn't there be an ANI case to stop this menace, and [insert more dramatic nonsense here]. It's way more headache than it's worth. I've almost completely given up on DS/alerts as a non-admin, and virtually never leave them, because the blood-pressure hit of dealing with hours or days of histrionics is absolutely not worth it. [I do sometimes still use Ds/alert for
WP:ARBATC stuff, though rarely. I consider disruptive behavior in
WP:POLICY discussions worse than in article content disputes, because it's not about making sure the encyclopedia is correct and balanced, it's just about gaming the system to stick it to wiki-political "enemies" over nothing but tedious internal trivia. It's a NOTHERE problem.] —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like Arbcom to consider adapting their procedures so that whenever a Proposed remedy of desysop is considered at Proposed decision, that a Proposed remedy similar to this one should be automatically considered.
I genuinely care about Wikipedians, as anyone who is dull enough to wikistalk me would know. I make this suggestion because I value our administrators - and I would strongly support any similar proposal that would benefit non administrators in a similar fashion. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I am considering an RfC to seek changes to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks. I can not move forward without knowing The Committee's mindset to its regard! The changes would otherwise resemble what follows:
... If an
administratoreditor in good standing believes that a checkuser block has been made in error,the administratorhe or she should first discuss the matter with the CheckUser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. ... (where the stricken red text would tentatively be replaced by the adjacent underlined green text).
My questions for members are:
1.) How does The Committee currently handle these e-mails (in particular, does The Committee respond to the e-mails with replies)?
2.) If consensus was to support changing policy this way, would The Committee be satisfied with the suggested changes or would different verbiage be preferred (if so, please give examples of the said preferences)? and:
3.) If the community endorses such an RfC with a consensus for adopting changes, will The Committee be as amenable to considering e-mails from the wider group of editors that consensus defines as you are now regarding administrator e-mails? Thank you.--
John Cline (
talk)
13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
For starters, I'll acknowledge Thryduulf's concern that the message was developed without the proper regard for gender neutrality. I'll admit that I had succumbed to an attitude of casual nonchalance and didn't really consider the matter beyond the elements of basic grammar. I plead systemic inculcation but will admit that I could have done better (in those regards) and should have; From now on I'll make myself do better, by giving the matter the attention it's due. So thank you for that.
Next, I'll agree that Berean Hunter explained the context of that clause perfectly, and I completely agree. Indeed I was thoroughly confused; missing many important trees for seeing the Forrest. And this actually resolves the entire matter for there's nothing at all in disrepair.
I would like to ask one question, in parting, however: Why is it always that when a subordinate in some matter wants to pursue having fresh eyes review a matter from some higher station, it is taken as being almost given that matters of misuse and potential abuse must be strongly apparent as well? And rationale is expected to establish these kinds of things, using diffs, from the outset?
In my case, the few examples where I have wished to inquire on a matter, misconduct was not even thought of as a contributing factor, and these always saw the lack of third party standing as being a quick fail criterion.
I thought this clause was an opening to such third party standing and I would have wanted this for myself and others in good standing, not exclusively admins. And that fire has not extinguished, I still wish we did have some standing for third parties, and that it was possible for things to move by briefs from "friends of the court". Maybe someone can help me understand why benevolence can not justify such a request but allegations of abuse can (and only such negativity)? -- John Cline ( talk) 18:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to request an edit to
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, which says that It should not be edited without the Committee's authorisation.
Currently, at WP:AC/DS#Alerts, there is a link [[WP:BOTDICT#automated editing|automated tools or bot accounts]] - this should be [[WP:BOTDICT#Automated editing|automated tools or bot accounts]] (#automated -> #Automated) to actually link to the entry.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of historical interest—AKA idle curiosity I guess—was Bangladesh deliberately omitted from these DS when they were originally established? They've had similarly frosty relations on occasion with both India and Pakistan, after all. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the rule to only give a single alert in a 12 month period for any given topic, how do we handle hopping IPs? I've tried to coach one, but today they are back with the same game at a different address. Can I issue another alert to the new address, with a a link for contribs to the prior addresses? But if I did that I would be drawing the conclusion that they are the same editor. Which is a good assumption since they edit the same articles with the same apparent POV. Advice, please! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Please desysop User:Necrothesp as a compromised account. I've emailed the clerks as well. RhinosF1 (chat) (status) (contribs) 16:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My account has been restored by WMF Trust & Safety and unblocked. I have set a much more complex password. I now need someone to restore my admin privileges. Thank you. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on " Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:
The " Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended to add the following underlined text:
Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators, not counting the arbitrator in question and any arbitrators who have been inactive for a period of at least 30 days.
This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.
Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on " Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:
The final paragraph of the " Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:
This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.
Enacted – Bradv 🍁 22:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of active arbitrators, not counting the arbitrator in question. Active is defined as activity within the past 30 days.-- Izno ( talk) 16:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Having said all that, I definitely am committed to reworking this proposal as needed so we wind up with the right solution rather than just a solution. This was intended as a starting point to solicit community feedback and put this issue on our radar. I'm currently toying with several possibilities and plan to propose an alternative soon-ish. ~ Rob13 Talk 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Any reasons as to why the voting of arbitrators (i.e. the support/oppose/abstain/recuse tally) in private appeals aren't disclosed? ∯WBG converse 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of where possible posting votes, and in fact in my first year when there was some discussion about whether or not to do so.
Currently, the arbitration policy links to the old criteria for access to non-public data at foundation:Access to nonpublic data policy, which has been out of date since 2015. The link should be updated to meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy, which is the current policy. I am not sure how much (if any) discussion this requires, but I am leaving a note here in case it does. -- Danski454 ( talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
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 GoldenRing at 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In the course of a request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I deleted
User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles as an arbitration enforcement action. My reason for doing so is that
WP:UP states that "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
In my view, this page is obviously the sort of "collation of diffs and criticisms related to problems" that the policy forbids. Dlthewave has repeatedly stated (eg
diff) that the purpose of the page is as background to an opinion piece in The Signpost; since I have repeatedly asked and they have given no other explanation, I have taken this as an admission that the material is not intended for dispute resolution. My justification for doing the deletion as an arbitration enforcement action is the "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project
" provision of
WP:AC/DS#sanctions.user. I'm aware that deletion is unusual as an enforcement action, but didn't expect it to be as controversial as it has proved.
Dlthewave appealed this at AE and in the course of the appeal, Bishonen advised them to start a request at WP:DRV, which they did. Bishonen undeleted the page so that those participating in the DRV request could see the content. I have objected to the undeletion as a unilateral overturning of an enforcement action but Bishonen has declined to self-revert this. I have no interest in wheel-warring over it.
A number of editors at DRV have objected to the deletion, for two main reasons: Firstly, that the content doesn't violate policy, and secondly that deletion is not a valid enforcement action (ie is not authorised under discretionary sanctions). Additionally, I and a couple of other editors have pointed out that DRV can't review enforcement actions, but a number of editors have objected this, too. These objections include some very experienced editors who I respect and I'm not so sure of myself as I was 24 hours ago. So I would like the committee please to answer these questions:
I would like to be very clear that I am asking these questions for clarification and am not looking for action against anyone; in particular, I am not requesting any action against Dlthewave for starting the DRV (they were, after all, advised to do so) nor against Bishoen for giving that advice or for undeleting the page (Bishonen is an admin I hold in high regard and while we disagree on this point of DS procedures, any action against her would be a great loss to the project; I would much rather concede the point and let the undeletion stand than see action here).
I've abstained from comment here because I don't feel that I have any strong insight or opinion regarding the intricacies of Arbcom procedures, and I'm not going to push for an outcome that affects the entire community just so that I can keep my userpage. However, I feel that the Committee would be remiss if they did not answer the first of Goldenring's questions, "Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions?"
–
dlthewave
☎
18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: You have perhaps forgotten part of the process, then. Unless pages at DRV are temporarily undeleted, only admins will be able to read them, i. e. only admins will be able to discuss them in a meaningful way. It's not supposed to work like that. I followed these instructions for how to do it. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC).
Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions? Based on the argument by Ivanvector at DRV I would say no. It is not. Furthermore I think the argument that it constituted WP:POLEMIC in the first place is flawed. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This response is directed to GoldenRing's bullet point #1 only, as the subsequent bullets assume a view with which I disagree.
As I stated at DRV, my view is that page deletion is not authorized by discretionary sanctions, certainly not explicitly, and neither in spirit. While the standard provisions authorize administrators to act in arbitration enforcement through the use of editing sanctions and page restrictions, and we grant significant latitude to administrators to create restrictions within the bounds of these categories and to block users who violate those restrictions in the name of arbitration enforcement, these powers do not extend to editorial and/or political control, nor wholesale removal of content. Furthermore, nothing in the gun control case appears to specifically enact these powers. And generally, it is common practice that the Arbitration Committee does not weigh in on matters of encyclopedia or userspace content, and as such it is an improper assumption that the Committee would wish to empower admins with unilateral deletion powers. But noting the disagreement at DRV, I would also like this to be explicitly clarified.
As for Bishonen's action and DRV itself in this incident: if Arbcom has explicitly declared that deleting a page is a sanction available for arbitration enforcement, then I would agree that AE would be the correct venue to review an Arbitration-enforcement deletion. However, the community's venue for deletions out-of-process is DRV, thus DRV is a logical venue for this incident. It is standard and widely-accepted practice to undelete content while its deletion is under review, and Bishonen's restoration ought to be viewed in that light unless and until someone can point to already-established Arbitration procedure in which the Committee has explicitly authorized userpage deletion as a discretionary sanction, and if and only if that process is already established, then owing to the present disagreement Bishonen should be given an acting in good faith pass on this one, or a "to satisfy the pedants" admonishment at the most severe.
Stating for the record that I believe that everyone carrying a mop has acted in good faith with respect to this incident. I also hold both GoldenRing and Bishonen in very high regard, and I appreciate GoldenRing seeking clarification on this point. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ivanvector. Such a deletion is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. Perhaps an Arbitrator with a longer memory than I have may find such a procedure but I'd be surprised. Certainly it was not authorised by us during the four years I was on the committee. I think everyone has acted in good faith with this but I believe that GoldenRing was wrong and that the page should not have been deleted. I've looked at the page and agree with those who say that the content does not violate policy. I'll also note that no editors have been named although obviously they can be identified via the links. I'll add that even if it hasn't been used it is information that has the potential to be useful. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I can think of situations whereby deletion would be in the purview of an AE action (for example, if a topic-banned editor was violating their TBan on a userspace page) but I agree with the two editors above that I can't see that this falls into this category. It is probably something that ArbCom could do with clarifying for future reference. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
If no harm would arise from having this page discussed at MfD, then it should be discussed at MfD, rather than deleted by any one person's unilateral action. Obviously both admin acted in good faith in a situation that is unclear and possibly unprecedented; any suggestion of sanctions would be over the top. Leviv ich 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
But nobody reading Special:Permalink/881981663 carefully would conclude that information on that page is "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately ... (my emphasis)
related to others". All of the information therein is related to articles, and there is no Arbitration Enforcement available to prevent editors from gathering quotes or diffs from articles or from article talk. We prevent users from gathering negative information about others, for reasons of BLP, but that is not licence to extend the prevention to collating article text. 'Shonen's restoration of the deleted page to allow scrutiny does not breach WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO (the only absolute prohibitions on restoration), and meets the test of COMMONSENSE.-- RexxS ( talk) 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"All enforcement actions have what you describe as "the usual immunity to reversion", whether they are valid or not."I refute that. To misquote Jimbo, the presumption of validity is not a suicide pact. If a claimed AE action is obviously invalid , as yours was, then a reversion of that action in order to comply with a conflicting policy or guideline is perfectly reasonable. Even you recognise that 'Shonen's actions were reasonable.
Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others, otherwise no quotes would ever be allowed. The sophistry is in trying to stretch those words to justify deleting a page that quotes hundreds of different editors, and cannot sensibly be construed to contain negative information about those editors. Any such connotation is purely in the mind of the observer, and you've made the mistake of construing talk page comments critical of an article or of statements in that article as "negative information" about the editors who made the comments.
All queries or appeals regarding arbitration enforcement, including those
feltalleged to be out of process or againstexistingpolicy, must first follow arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before being reversedor discussedat another venue.
The basis for deletion comes from WP:UP. That same page says "In general other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or
BLP violations can be
speedy deleted using a suitable
template, such as {{
db-attack}}, {{
db-copyvio}} or {{
db-spamuser}}; other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to
deletion discussion.
Justifying a deletion by citing policy and then not following the policy for how to go about deletion seems problematic at best.
The reason for deletion is not a speedy criteria. And standard DS do not allow for deletion of a page as near as I can tell. I only see one other deletion in WP:AEL and that was justified on A7/BLP grounds. As S Marshall has indicated, AE enforcing admins very much deserve our support and I'm personally grateful to those that take on such a demanding and stressful job. But here there is overreach outside of the scope of either a single admin or AE. There was no rush and no reason WP:MfD couldn't have been used (where I suspect it would have been kept).
In any case, I agree with Roy (below)--this is about content not behavior. The discussion belongs at DRV. edited Hobit ( talk) 04:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Hobit ( talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't often get involved in ArbCom business, so forgive me if I'm not up on the nuances of policy and procedure here. But, reading what User:SmokeyJoe said above: ArbCom is supposed to stay out of content decisions, I find myself very much in agreement. The converse is certainly true; DRV deals with content, and stays out of behavioral issues. It's common in DRV debates for somebody to write, We're only here to talk about the page deletion; if you want to pursue a user's conduct, there's other fora for that. This seems like a natural and useful division of responsibilities, and why it seems odd to be talking about ArbCom getting involved in reviewing a page deletion.
I don't think it was appropriate to delete the user page. I also think it was perfectly reasonable (and SOP at DRV) to temp-undelete the page for review. I also want to echo what others have said; while there's clearly a disagreement about what the proper course of action should have been, it's also clear that everybody has acted in good faith here. There should be no thought of sanctions for anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I have standing here, but can I request that this get resolved sometime soon? Surely, six weeks is long enough to make a decision. I, as an admin, are left not knowing if temp-undeleting a page at WP:DRV could lead to my being desysoped. What we've got now is arbcom saying, "We reserve the right to desysop you if you break the rules, but we won't tell you what the rules are". That's not useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
While I disagree with GoldenRing on the merits of the deletion, I agree with their submission of 16:22, 26 February 2019 in that the Committee should clarify whether deletions (other than those already allowed by ordinary deletion policy) are in principle allowed as discretionary sanctions, and whether any review of deletions labeled as discretionary sanctions must take place by way of the procedures for the appeal of AE actions. In my reading of applicable policy, the answer to both questions is clearly yes, but the opinions to the contrary that have been voiced at DRV show that this question needs clarification. Sandstein 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I've performed I'd guess around a quarter of the temporary undeletions at DRV over the past few years. Contra what's been stated both above and below, it's neither an absolute right (even barring copyvio and blp - there's been a number of cases where no admin's been willing to tempundelete in the cases of egregious spam, for example; I can dig out some example DRVs if it'd be helpful) nor, in particular, automatic: in practice we almost always wait until an uninvolved user requests it. I don't recall ever seeing the author of a page requesting temp undeletion for the purposes of DRV before; even had this deletion not been labeled an AE action, I'd certainly have declined, though I might have offered to email it. — Cryptic 20:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Dialing my wonk-o-meter up to 11, I'm not seeing anywhere in WP:Protection policy that authorizes arbcom to authorize admins to protect pages, either. (It does mention arbcom with respect to unprotections, and very indirectly for extended-confirmed protections.) So the idea that arbcom can't authorize deletions just because it's not explicitly stated in WP:Deletion policy or WP:Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't get a whole lot of sympathy from me. That said, if the committee ends up deciding this deletion was correct, I'll go through the hassle at WT:CSD to try to get this properly documented, probably as a variant of WP:G9. — Cryptic 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@ RoySmith: re Special:Diff/891855139: Agree that resolution would be nice. The rest is a nonissue: you should be looking at the content and logs of pages you restore anyway, even temporarily. If it contains blatant attacks or copyvios, or it's labeled as a copyvio or an "arbitration enforcement" variant ("AE" or "discretionary sanctions" or "DS" or "AC/DS"), you don't just restore it on your own initiative even if you think the labeling's incorrect, you consult with the deleting admin. If the deletion isn't labeled as arbitration enforcement, then it's not a valid enforcement action, per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.log. — Cryptic 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to allow that ACDS is legitimate grounds for out-of-process deletion, then we're probably approaching the point where we've abandoned the pretense that ArbCom does not make policy. GMG talk 01:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If the standard operating procedure of undeletion for DRV can be called a violation of an enforcement action authorised under discretionary sanctions, I think we've reached sort of an end point grammatically and in terms of Arb Power. Sorry, but I think this is silly and pushing the point of authoritay too far. Drmies ( talk) 15:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I came upon this when I went to close the DRV. The committee's discussion thus far, in my opinion, has yet to fully grapple with the core concern that I see from those critical of permitting DS deletion, and one that I share: permitting out of process deletion under the authority of enforcement of DS is taking DS enforcement away from being a tool to enable administrators to deal with disruptive conduct, and instead making admins arbiters of disfavored content. The dichotomy is real, as several committee members appear to feel that under appropriate circumstances an administrator acting under DS enforcement authority could delete a page (or I suppose an article) and be subject to review only at ARCA. The tools ordinarily used - topic bans, blocks, and page protections - are designed to reduce disruption by modifying user conduct. Deletion, uniquely, hides the information from ordinary readers, and that is why the comprehensive deletion process governs when there is consensus that such removal is acceptable. The committee should recognize that just as the AN community has special expertise in dealing with user conduct issues, Afd/Mfd/DRV and their ilk are where editors have particular insight these content issues. It would be concerning if the community's expertise were to be deprecated in favor of an enforcement mechanism made for user conduct issues. My personal preference here would be to see the committee take deletion off the table of DS enforcement options. Functionally equivalent would be to say the deletion process must be followed - a speedy deletion criterion cited, with review at DRV. Less satisfactory would be to limit such reviews to ARCA. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I happened to see mention of this discussion and am alarmed by the way it is going. Reading this user page, it is clearly a complaint about the bias of articles, which is to say, it is directly applicable to Wikipedia editing. It is not addressed at any editor (indeed, has timidly omitted usernames). It does, of course, favor a certain point of view, but editors should be allowed to favor a point of view they agree with when it is being excluded from articles. I say this even though I am pro-gun rights and suspect many of the individual edits were correct.
The consequence of (literally) arbitrarily excluding such content is to propagate the idea that Wikipedia is biased and to encourage editors to share information like this off-site. The consequence of that is that Wikipedia loses any ability to suppress deliberate cyberbullying, while the editors lured to partisan sanctuaries are more likely to fall under the influence of actual lobbyist money. In every way, the quality of discourse is degraded by deletions like this. And unless the arbitration decision specifically prohibited making any new pages about a topic, such deletions cannot possibly be valid arbitration enforcement. Wnt ( talk) 20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I just closed the DRV as overturn as the clear consensus of the discussion. Once you have completed your august deliberations could someone let me know if I can enact the clear consensus of the discussion or whether super Mario has won. Incidentally my autocorrect hates arbcom it keeps changing it to random or wrecked. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes (i.e., not content disputes requiring mediation) that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved. The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. (My bolding). Fish+ Karate 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
In my view "removal" in Arb/DS policy is meant in the sense it is used at WP:TALK or WP:BLP, that is an action that removes an edit or comment, it is not meant in the sense it is used in deletion policy or oversight policy. As we see from this case, it is not prudent to have the expansive construction of "removal" in Arb/DS to include deletion and oversight, which both have extensive articulated process, separate and apart. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wherever we draw the boundaries of arbitration enforcement, there will be fringe cases where admins may disagree on whether AE applies. ArbCom needs to decide whether it retains (or wants to retain) exclusive jurisdiction over the policing of AE boundaries. Today we're talking about page deletion, next time we may talk about the applicability of AE over protection in certain circumstances or some other admin action.
If ArbCom decides it retains exclusive jurisdiction over the boundaries, which I disagree with, then it needs to be prepared that any action that is declared by any admin as an act of arbitration enforcement will automatically escalate to ArbCom if someone disagrees with it. This seems to go against ArbCom's mantra that lower venues of dispute resolution ought to be tried first if possible (as is DRV in this case) before escalating to ArbCom in general.
As for the case at hand, I agree with RexxS and Ivanvector here. We ought to be narrow and cautious in the interpretation of AE provisions. While the ArbCom is allowed to make an (clarifying) amendment that DS covers page deletion, I don't think "removal" in the current wording includes page deletion, because as many other have pointed out, page deletion redacts the contents of the page history from public view. Deryck C. 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe my comment will help motivate a close. Countless hours are spent/wasted trying to decipher ambiguous PAGs. The obvious solution would be to clarify the ones that create the problems. As editors are so often advised, it is not about who is right or wrong, it's about the disruption, and admins & ArbCom need to apply this to their own actions. It appears ArbCom invests a measurable amount of time and energy looking for reasons to not take a case...thus, the creation of AE...which sometimes leads to more confusion under the guise of saving time and energy. What we're doing in essence is substituting input from several admins for discretionary action and passing it over to a single admin, and if they execute the action improperly, off with their heads. Fix the ambiguities. I can't see that either admin is at fault here; therefore, trying to afix blame is not resolving the problem. Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Option C in the survey below seems to be the only valid option. Because WP:AC/DS is simply delegation of ArbCom authority to admins, and ArbCom does not make content decisions, general decisions to delete content as such are outside the remit of AC/DS, absent some other deletion rationale. However, if admins are already empowered to delete something under other policy, then doing so, within those policy limits, and as part of AC/DS action would be legitimate. For example, AC/DS is most specifically about blocks and topic bans, but admins can do other things, like impose a "move-ban" on someone mis-using manual page moves, and require them to use RM process. I don't think anyone would argue that if someone were disruptively moving pages in an AC/DS topic area that DS could not involve a move ban, despite not being mentioned at the AC/DS page. The difference here is that the deleting admin is making what amounts to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT content decision about the material in the page (I have no opinion on the allegation that this was politically motivated). That's not a rationale for DS action, and not a rationale for deletion, so no combination of DS + DP/CSD results in "I can delete this because I feel like it". In this particular case, the motivation seems genuinely WP:POLEMIC-enforcement-motivated (though I don't think I agree with the assessment that the material necessarily qualified under POLEMIC). We cannot predict the future with certainty, but can make educated guesses. Since AC/DS is applied to controversial topics, and disruption correlates strongly with controversy, it seems virtually guaranteed that unrestrained deletion under AC/DS will result in suppression by admins of material they disagree with, by translating "is opposite my or the majority view in a dispute" into "is disruptive". Content by itself is not disruptive (outside some narrowly defined classes like vandalism with butthole pictures, or OUTING with personally identifiable information); editorial actions are.
On the follow-up questions: DRV is and should remain an obvious venue for review of any deletion. It's not "WP:Deletion review except for some people". WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:GAMING are important. We don't want a decision under which any admin who seeks to avoid DRV and general community scrutiny for questionable deletions can simply claim some vague AC/DS rationale and thereby close all avenues of appeal other than AE (which is a star chamber that leans toward presumption of guilt of anyone accused by an AE admin, and is generally hostile to editors who challenge an AE admin's decision), or ArbCom (which is even scarier to most editors, though actually fairer). In both processes, there is a strong bias in favor of the admin who acted, both in the minds of those reviewing the action and usually in the admin party's knowledge of the excessively legalistic procedures surrounding ArbCom and its AE board. ArbCom is not bound by precedent, so the fact that it has historically treated all AC/DS actions as appealable only to AE or ArbCom is irrelevant. Explicitly allowing deletion as a DS action is dangerous, and removing DRV as an examination venue would be a disenfranchisement of the community without any real discussion or notice. ArbCom deciding that its clan of AE "enforcers" how has deletion impunity and near-immunity (option B in the survey, or even option C with DRV excluded) would be a poor and controversial move. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that the approach proposed by AGK – to make it clear that deletions are not possible as an AE action – is the best way forward. I recognise the concern that SilkTork raises, but the alternative proposal is not the way to address that, in my view. As I understand it, SilkTork wants it to be clear that an admin may make a deletion under their ordinary authority under the deletion policy while also addressing an AE situation. However, by adding the extra mention of the deletion policy implies that the use of ordinary authority in relation to deletions is an exception. It admits the interpretation that the existing practice of an indefinite block with only the first year as an AE action is not permitted.
I suggest that AGK's approach / addition be preferred, and a relevant addition to the DS procedures state that:
The advantage of this approach, in my view, is that it covers not simply this deletion issue but any and all questions that could arise where ordinary admin authority is used. It makes the treatment uniform and avoids any claim that the deletions are treated differently. The second point would also cover any other area that might be questioned in the future. I don't know how much of this is already covered in the DS policy, but I think it is worth codifying. I looked at the policy quickly but didn't see any clear statement that makes this clear, and I don't know exactly where it would be added or how it would be worded. EdChem ( talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the notion that a AE admin should have less authority than a non AE admin, and so create a situation where someone creates a page in direct violation of an ArbCom sanction, yet an AE admin could only delete such a page outside of ArbCom protection, and so there is uncertainty (again) over where the matter should be discussed.
The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to enable normal editing and consensus-building procedures to function even in situations where there is substantial disruption; their purpose is not to replace such procedures. The idea that an WP:AE deletion is not subject to WP:DRV therefore seems patiently absurd, especially given that DRV is, itself, historically an extremely high bar to pass (ie. the nature of an appeal means that in the absence of a consensus the default is that the article would stay deleted.) More generally, the problem stems from situations where WP:AE matters intrude on content decisions; based on that danger, I would amend WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators to state that by default, any content-based changes resulting from an WP:AE action (including deletions) can be reversed provided there is a clear consensus via an established venue like WP:DRV, without requiring that that be a consensus of administrators; and that in cases where there is a disagreement, such consensus is presumed to be sufficient to establish that something is a content issue. While WP:AE isn't supposed to apply to content in the first place, it is inevitable that there will occasionally be overlap, and it's important to establish that in cases where that occurs, an administrator cannot override or ignore consensus on content issues simply by invoking WP:AE (and that the default, in cases of confusion, is to go with a broad consensus when it exists.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that earlier today I closed the AE appeal [3] and consequently restored the page in question. At the time, I was not aware of the existence of this clarification request (I have probably seen it on my watchlist some time ago, decided that it has no relation to my activities, and forgotten about it). I believe that the closure of AE is completely orthogonal to the request, since I believe nobody says the page may not be restored as a result of an AE closure. However, if anybody feels that the existence of this clarification request mandates that the AE request must sty open, feel free to unclose it.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: - I was hoping you (as the tweaking arb) could clarify how this is going to avoid looping round to the same problem - if it goes to AE, which would probably rule to adopt the broader interpretation of its own authority, then we seem set to end right back up again here as the "losing" side appeals the decision. The "appropriate forum" is only a symptomatic consideration since it would never be considered for DRV if arbitrary sanctions didn't/doesn't include deleting pages. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If the final motion passes (as it appears it will), you may also want to clarify
WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications. Will an undeletion request be considered to be the same as a request for modification of page restrictions and so may be made by any editor? Otherwise, "(a)ppeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", and for a page deletion, the deletion could affect many editors (an
ESSAY for example). Perhaps explicitly change it to something like "Requests to undelete pages or for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor."
But does that really belong in a section titled "Appeals by sanctioned editors", when that's not necessarily who will be appealing?
Mojoworker (
talk)
19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Most editors are loathe to read anything related to guns on Wikipedia, let alone comment. This issue is much broader than any disputed area. If this request were entitled for example "Authorize page deletion as a discretionary sanction" or some such, the feedback our arbiters would be receiving from our community would be very different. 2A0C:E300:0:0:0:0:0:23 ( talk) 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
To see if we need to take this discussion further, it may be helpful to take a quick survey:
(1) Proposed:
The Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions is amended at sanctions.caveats to read as follows:
For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; to delete pages; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.
where the text underlined is to be inserted.
(1) Proposed:
The Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions is amended at sanctions.caveats to read as follows:
For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; to delete pages outside of the deletion policy; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.
where the text underlined is to be inserted.
The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
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.
Putting this here because I'm not sure where else to put it, and feel free to remove if this isn't appropriate, but why is is that certian editors well be mentioned on the board when they're banned, like TDA, But others won't, like Zawl and Turtle neck ninja? 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 00:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.
There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard ( talk) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I just posted something similar to what I am posting below in a reply to Joe Roe, but think it is worth noting to the whole of ArbCom:
EdChem ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence under "Dismissing an enforcement request" presently reads: "When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches." I may perhaps be misreading, but my impression is that the relative clause is restrictive and should therefore not be set off by comma. I suggest the sentence be accordingly changed to "When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present that would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action. If appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches." I've also divided this into two sentences, which isn't necessary if it's desired to leave it as one. Thank you. – Roy McCoy ( talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to know the process of sending emails to the Committee. In the past I have sent emails to the Committee and I have gotten no response. Even if the response is basically telling me to "go away" that is a better response than ignoring me. Being transparent and letting me know that you received my email and that it's not in your SPAM box is appreciated and in accordance with ADMINACCT. I would appreciate at least a response telling me that you received my email. That I have a valid concern or question is irrelevant, I do deserve the respect of having my email answered. Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I know the page is only semi-protected, but it says not to edit it, so here goes:
I'd like to request that part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions be rephrased (without changing its meaning)
From:
An injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favor of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support.
To:
An injunction is considered to have passed when it is supported by at least four net votes.
Phrasing borrowed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings
Reason: It reads really weirdly in its current form, and its not consistent with the rest of the page.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 08:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.( Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures). However, given that this would not qualify as a "significant or substantive modification," what would be the procedure to change it (hypothetically)? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 08:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the correct procedure for requesting that a new article be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator to determine whether it is construed to be within an area of conflict or not and if so to tag it and set the appropriate level of protection?-- John Cline ( talk) 15:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Are there any defined statute of limitations in arbitration procedures? For example, may an administrator be desysoped because of an incident happening ten years ago?-- GZWDer ( talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I'd like to request that an edit be made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Editors restricted. This is believed to be an uncontroversial edit that does not change the meaning of the page, but only the format of a specific link.
Specifically, please change:
::::''Modifed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Motion_.28Eastern_European_mailing_list.29] on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)''
to
::::''Modifed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Motion_.28Eastern_European_mailing_list.29 motion] on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)''
This would change the URL's text from [56]
to motion
, making it consistent with the rest of the page.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dlohcierekim's edit of 17:31 has been posted twice. 2A00:23C0:7983:8301:10E9:F80:9F3F:2269 ( talk) 17:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, these things just bug me:
In the "lede" of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ, please change
[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=608966072 motion]
to
[[Special:Permalink/608966072#Motion (exemption regarding ancient sexuality)|motion]]
This is believed to be an uncontroversial edit that does not change the meaning of the page, but only the format of a specific link; the new link would be in the same format as the other motions listed with it, and would, like the other links, link to the specific section with the motion.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I propose to remove all aliases except former usernames from the list (real names in particular), as real names are 1. nowhere complete, 2. make finding of a specific user more difficult, and 3. don't have a useful propose (as it's usually not the apperence of their signatures).-- GZWDer ( talk) 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
We're seeing a lot of requests coming through RfPP regarding Pakistan and also sometimes India, not just today but for the last week or two. It is my assessment that editing in the area of ARBIPA is heating up. If any ball needs to be got rolling, consider this my contribution.
Best regards,
Samsara 16:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
for that topic within the last year. About 95% of the time when I see something in one of these "your ethnicity/country/religion/whatever versus mine" pissing matches that makes me consider an AN report, I find that the person who needs to be brought up doesn't qualify. I've also learned that non-admins leaving the alert nearly always increases drama rather than reduces it, so it's really up to youse-all with the fancy user bit to template these people programmatically so they're not "immune to prosecution". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
docs, though that needs to be clearer), or going to some wikiproject talk page and grandstanding about how someone just "attacked" and "threatened" them and shouldn't there be an ANI case to stop this menace, and [insert more dramatic nonsense here]. It's way more headache than it's worth. I've almost completely given up on DS/alerts as a non-admin, and virtually never leave them, because the blood-pressure hit of dealing with hours or days of histrionics is absolutely not worth it. [I do sometimes still use Ds/alert for
WP:ARBATC stuff, though rarely. I consider disruptive behavior in
WP:POLICY discussions worse than in article content disputes, because it's not about making sure the encyclopedia is correct and balanced, it's just about gaming the system to stick it to wiki-political "enemies" over nothing but tedious internal trivia. It's a NOTHERE problem.] —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like Arbcom to consider adapting their procedures so that whenever a Proposed remedy of desysop is considered at Proposed decision, that a Proposed remedy similar to this one should be automatically considered.
I genuinely care about Wikipedians, as anyone who is dull enough to wikistalk me would know. I make this suggestion because I value our administrators - and I would strongly support any similar proposal that would benefit non administrators in a similar fashion. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I am considering an RfC to seek changes to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks. I can not move forward without knowing The Committee's mindset to its regard! The changes would otherwise resemble what follows:
... If an
administratoreditor in good standing believes that a checkuser block has been made in error,the administratorhe or she should first discuss the matter with the CheckUser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. ... (where the stricken red text would tentatively be replaced by the adjacent underlined green text).
My questions for members are:
1.) How does The Committee currently handle these e-mails (in particular, does The Committee respond to the e-mails with replies)?
2.) If consensus was to support changing policy this way, would The Committee be satisfied with the suggested changes or would different verbiage be preferred (if so, please give examples of the said preferences)? and:
3.) If the community endorses such an RfC with a consensus for adopting changes, will The Committee be as amenable to considering e-mails from the wider group of editors that consensus defines as you are now regarding administrator e-mails? Thank you.--
John Cline (
talk)
13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
For starters, I'll acknowledge Thryduulf's concern that the message was developed without the proper regard for gender neutrality. I'll admit that I had succumbed to an attitude of casual nonchalance and didn't really consider the matter beyond the elements of basic grammar. I plead systemic inculcation but will admit that I could have done better (in those regards) and should have; From now on I'll make myself do better, by giving the matter the attention it's due. So thank you for that.
Next, I'll agree that Berean Hunter explained the context of that clause perfectly, and I completely agree. Indeed I was thoroughly confused; missing many important trees for seeing the Forrest. And this actually resolves the entire matter for there's nothing at all in disrepair.
I would like to ask one question, in parting, however: Why is it always that when a subordinate in some matter wants to pursue having fresh eyes review a matter from some higher station, it is taken as being almost given that matters of misuse and potential abuse must be strongly apparent as well? And rationale is expected to establish these kinds of things, using diffs, from the outset?
In my case, the few examples where I have wished to inquire on a matter, misconduct was not even thought of as a contributing factor, and these always saw the lack of third party standing as being a quick fail criterion.
I thought this clause was an opening to such third party standing and I would have wanted this for myself and others in good standing, not exclusively admins. And that fire has not extinguished, I still wish we did have some standing for third parties, and that it was possible for things to move by briefs from "friends of the court". Maybe someone can help me understand why benevolence can not justify such a request but allegations of abuse can (and only such negativity)? -- John Cline ( talk) 18:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to request an edit to
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, which says that It should not be edited without the Committee's authorisation.
Currently, at WP:AC/DS#Alerts, there is a link [[WP:BOTDICT#automated editing|automated tools or bot accounts]] - this should be [[WP:BOTDICT#Automated editing|automated tools or bot accounts]] (#automated -> #Automated) to actually link to the entry.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of historical interest—AKA idle curiosity I guess—was Bangladesh deliberately omitted from these DS when they were originally established? They've had similarly frosty relations on occasion with both India and Pakistan, after all. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the rule to only give a single alert in a 12 month period for any given topic, how do we handle hopping IPs? I've tried to coach one, but today they are back with the same game at a different address. Can I issue another alert to the new address, with a a link for contribs to the prior addresses? But if I did that I would be drawing the conclusion that they are the same editor. Which is a good assumption since they edit the same articles with the same apparent POV. Advice, please! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Please desysop User:Necrothesp as a compromised account. I've emailed the clerks as well. RhinosF1 (chat) (status) (contribs) 16:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My account has been restored by WMF Trust & Safety and unblocked. I have set a much more complex password. I now need someone to restore my admin privileges. Thank you. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on " Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:
The " Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended to add the following underlined text:
Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators, not counting the arbitrator in question and any arbitrators who have been inactive for a period of at least 30 days.
This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.
Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on " Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:
The final paragraph of the " Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:
This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.
Enacted – Bradv 🍁 22:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of active arbitrators, not counting the arbitrator in question. Active is defined as activity within the past 30 days.-- Izno ( talk) 16:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Having said all that, I definitely am committed to reworking this proposal as needed so we wind up with the right solution rather than just a solution. This was intended as a starting point to solicit community feedback and put this issue on our radar. I'm currently toying with several possibilities and plan to propose an alternative soon-ish. ~ Rob13 Talk 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Any reasons as to why the voting of arbitrators (i.e. the support/oppose/abstain/recuse tally) in private appeals aren't disclosed? ∯WBG converse 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of where possible posting votes, and in fact in my first year when there was some discussion about whether or not to do so.
Currently, the arbitration policy links to the old criteria for access to non-public data at foundation:Access to nonpublic data policy, which has been out of date since 2015. The link should be updated to meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy, which is the current policy. I am not sure how much (if any) discussion this requires, but I am leaving a note here in case it does. -- Danski454 ( talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
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 GoldenRing at 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In the course of a request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I deleted
User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles as an arbitration enforcement action. My reason for doing so is that
WP:UP states that "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
In my view, this page is obviously the sort of "collation of diffs and criticisms related to problems" that the policy forbids. Dlthewave has repeatedly stated (eg
diff) that the purpose of the page is as background to an opinion piece in The Signpost; since I have repeatedly asked and they have given no other explanation, I have taken this as an admission that the material is not intended for dispute resolution. My justification for doing the deletion as an arbitration enforcement action is the "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project
" provision of
WP:AC/DS#sanctions.user. I'm aware that deletion is unusual as an enforcement action, but didn't expect it to be as controversial as it has proved.
Dlthewave appealed this at AE and in the course of the appeal, Bishonen advised them to start a request at WP:DRV, which they did. Bishonen undeleted the page so that those participating in the DRV request could see the content. I have objected to the undeletion as a unilateral overturning of an enforcement action but Bishonen has declined to self-revert this. I have no interest in wheel-warring over it.
A number of editors at DRV have objected to the deletion, for two main reasons: Firstly, that the content doesn't violate policy, and secondly that deletion is not a valid enforcement action (ie is not authorised under discretionary sanctions). Additionally, I and a couple of other editors have pointed out that DRV can't review enforcement actions, but a number of editors have objected this, too. These objections include some very experienced editors who I respect and I'm not so sure of myself as I was 24 hours ago. So I would like the committee please to answer these questions:
I would like to be very clear that I am asking these questions for clarification and am not looking for action against anyone; in particular, I am not requesting any action against Dlthewave for starting the DRV (they were, after all, advised to do so) nor against Bishoen for giving that advice or for undeleting the page (Bishonen is an admin I hold in high regard and while we disagree on this point of DS procedures, any action against her would be a great loss to the project; I would much rather concede the point and let the undeletion stand than see action here).
I've abstained from comment here because I don't feel that I have any strong insight or opinion regarding the intricacies of Arbcom procedures, and I'm not going to push for an outcome that affects the entire community just so that I can keep my userpage. However, I feel that the Committee would be remiss if they did not answer the first of Goldenring's questions, "Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions?"
–
dlthewave
☎
18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: You have perhaps forgotten part of the process, then. Unless pages at DRV are temporarily undeleted, only admins will be able to read them, i. e. only admins will be able to discuss them in a meaningful way. It's not supposed to work like that. I followed these instructions for how to do it. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC).
Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions? Based on the argument by Ivanvector at DRV I would say no. It is not. Furthermore I think the argument that it constituted WP:POLEMIC in the first place is flawed. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This response is directed to GoldenRing's bullet point #1 only, as the subsequent bullets assume a view with which I disagree.
As I stated at DRV, my view is that page deletion is not authorized by discretionary sanctions, certainly not explicitly, and neither in spirit. While the standard provisions authorize administrators to act in arbitration enforcement through the use of editing sanctions and page restrictions, and we grant significant latitude to administrators to create restrictions within the bounds of these categories and to block users who violate those restrictions in the name of arbitration enforcement, these powers do not extend to editorial and/or political control, nor wholesale removal of content. Furthermore, nothing in the gun control case appears to specifically enact these powers. And generally, it is common practice that the Arbitration Committee does not weigh in on matters of encyclopedia or userspace content, and as such it is an improper assumption that the Committee would wish to empower admins with unilateral deletion powers. But noting the disagreement at DRV, I would also like this to be explicitly clarified.
As for Bishonen's action and DRV itself in this incident: if Arbcom has explicitly declared that deleting a page is a sanction available for arbitration enforcement, then I would agree that AE would be the correct venue to review an Arbitration-enforcement deletion. However, the community's venue for deletions out-of-process is DRV, thus DRV is a logical venue for this incident. It is standard and widely-accepted practice to undelete content while its deletion is under review, and Bishonen's restoration ought to be viewed in that light unless and until someone can point to already-established Arbitration procedure in which the Committee has explicitly authorized userpage deletion as a discretionary sanction, and if and only if that process is already established, then owing to the present disagreement Bishonen should be given an acting in good faith pass on this one, or a "to satisfy the pedants" admonishment at the most severe.
Stating for the record that I believe that everyone carrying a mop has acted in good faith with respect to this incident. I also hold both GoldenRing and Bishonen in very high regard, and I appreciate GoldenRing seeking clarification on this point. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ivanvector. Such a deletion is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. Perhaps an Arbitrator with a longer memory than I have may find such a procedure but I'd be surprised. Certainly it was not authorised by us during the four years I was on the committee. I think everyone has acted in good faith with this but I believe that GoldenRing was wrong and that the page should not have been deleted. I've looked at the page and agree with those who say that the content does not violate policy. I'll also note that no editors have been named although obviously they can be identified via the links. I'll add that even if it hasn't been used it is information that has the potential to be useful. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I can think of situations whereby deletion would be in the purview of an AE action (for example, if a topic-banned editor was violating their TBan on a userspace page) but I agree with the two editors above that I can't see that this falls into this category. It is probably something that ArbCom could do with clarifying for future reference. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
If no harm would arise from having this page discussed at MfD, then it should be discussed at MfD, rather than deleted by any one person's unilateral action. Obviously both admin acted in good faith in a situation that is unclear and possibly unprecedented; any suggestion of sanctions would be over the top. Leviv ich 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
But nobody reading Special:Permalink/881981663 carefully would conclude that information on that page is "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately ... (my emphasis)
related to others". All of the information therein is related to articles, and there is no Arbitration Enforcement available to prevent editors from gathering quotes or diffs from articles or from article talk. We prevent users from gathering negative information about others, for reasons of BLP, but that is not licence to extend the prevention to collating article text. 'Shonen's restoration of the deleted page to allow scrutiny does not breach WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO (the only absolute prohibitions on restoration), and meets the test of COMMONSENSE.-- RexxS ( talk) 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"All enforcement actions have what you describe as "the usual immunity to reversion", whether they are valid or not."I refute that. To misquote Jimbo, the presumption of validity is not a suicide pact. If a claimed AE action is obviously invalid , as yours was, then a reversion of that action in order to comply with a conflicting policy or guideline is perfectly reasonable. Even you recognise that 'Shonen's actions were reasonable.
Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others, otherwise no quotes would ever be allowed. The sophistry is in trying to stretch those words to justify deleting a page that quotes hundreds of different editors, and cannot sensibly be construed to contain negative information about those editors. Any such connotation is purely in the mind of the observer, and you've made the mistake of construing talk page comments critical of an article or of statements in that article as "negative information" about the editors who made the comments.
All queries or appeals regarding arbitration enforcement, including those
feltalleged to be out of process or againstexistingpolicy, must first follow arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before being reversedor discussedat another venue.
The basis for deletion comes from WP:UP. That same page says "In general other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or
BLP violations can be
speedy deleted using a suitable
template, such as {{
db-attack}}, {{
db-copyvio}} or {{
db-spamuser}}; other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to
deletion discussion.
Justifying a deletion by citing policy and then not following the policy for how to go about deletion seems problematic at best.
The reason for deletion is not a speedy criteria. And standard DS do not allow for deletion of a page as near as I can tell. I only see one other deletion in WP:AEL and that was justified on A7/BLP grounds. As S Marshall has indicated, AE enforcing admins very much deserve our support and I'm personally grateful to those that take on such a demanding and stressful job. But here there is overreach outside of the scope of either a single admin or AE. There was no rush and no reason WP:MfD couldn't have been used (where I suspect it would have been kept).
In any case, I agree with Roy (below)--this is about content not behavior. The discussion belongs at DRV. edited Hobit ( talk) 04:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Hobit ( talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't often get involved in ArbCom business, so forgive me if I'm not up on the nuances of policy and procedure here. But, reading what User:SmokeyJoe said above: ArbCom is supposed to stay out of content decisions, I find myself very much in agreement. The converse is certainly true; DRV deals with content, and stays out of behavioral issues. It's common in DRV debates for somebody to write, We're only here to talk about the page deletion; if you want to pursue a user's conduct, there's other fora for that. This seems like a natural and useful division of responsibilities, and why it seems odd to be talking about ArbCom getting involved in reviewing a page deletion.
I don't think it was appropriate to delete the user page. I also think it was perfectly reasonable (and SOP at DRV) to temp-undelete the page for review. I also want to echo what others have said; while there's clearly a disagreement about what the proper course of action should have been, it's also clear that everybody has acted in good faith here. There should be no thought of sanctions for anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I have standing here, but can I request that this get resolved sometime soon? Surely, six weeks is long enough to make a decision. I, as an admin, are left not knowing if temp-undeleting a page at WP:DRV could lead to my being desysoped. What we've got now is arbcom saying, "We reserve the right to desysop you if you break the rules, but we won't tell you what the rules are". That's not useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
While I disagree with GoldenRing on the merits of the deletion, I agree with their submission of 16:22, 26 February 2019 in that the Committee should clarify whether deletions (other than those already allowed by ordinary deletion policy) are in principle allowed as discretionary sanctions, and whether any review of deletions labeled as discretionary sanctions must take place by way of the procedures for the appeal of AE actions. In my reading of applicable policy, the answer to both questions is clearly yes, but the opinions to the contrary that have been voiced at DRV show that this question needs clarification. Sandstein 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I've performed I'd guess around a quarter of the temporary undeletions at DRV over the past few years. Contra what's been stated both above and below, it's neither an absolute right (even barring copyvio and blp - there's been a number of cases where no admin's been willing to tempundelete in the cases of egregious spam, for example; I can dig out some example DRVs if it'd be helpful) nor, in particular, automatic: in practice we almost always wait until an uninvolved user requests it. I don't recall ever seeing the author of a page requesting temp undeletion for the purposes of DRV before; even had this deletion not been labeled an AE action, I'd certainly have declined, though I might have offered to email it. — Cryptic 20:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Dialing my wonk-o-meter up to 11, I'm not seeing anywhere in WP:Protection policy that authorizes arbcom to authorize admins to protect pages, either. (It does mention arbcom with respect to unprotections, and very indirectly for extended-confirmed protections.) So the idea that arbcom can't authorize deletions just because it's not explicitly stated in WP:Deletion policy or WP:Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't get a whole lot of sympathy from me. That said, if the committee ends up deciding this deletion was correct, I'll go through the hassle at WT:CSD to try to get this properly documented, probably as a variant of WP:G9. — Cryptic 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@ RoySmith: re Special:Diff/891855139: Agree that resolution would be nice. The rest is a nonissue: you should be looking at the content and logs of pages you restore anyway, even temporarily. If it contains blatant attacks or copyvios, or it's labeled as a copyvio or an "arbitration enforcement" variant ("AE" or "discretionary sanctions" or "DS" or "AC/DS"), you don't just restore it on your own initiative even if you think the labeling's incorrect, you consult with the deleting admin. If the deletion isn't labeled as arbitration enforcement, then it's not a valid enforcement action, per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.log. — Cryptic 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to allow that ACDS is legitimate grounds for out-of-process deletion, then we're probably approaching the point where we've abandoned the pretense that ArbCom does not make policy. GMG talk 01:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If the standard operating procedure of undeletion for DRV can be called a violation of an enforcement action authorised under discretionary sanctions, I think we've reached sort of an end point grammatically and in terms of Arb Power. Sorry, but I think this is silly and pushing the point of authoritay too far. Drmies ( talk) 15:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I came upon this when I went to close the DRV. The committee's discussion thus far, in my opinion, has yet to fully grapple with the core concern that I see from those critical of permitting DS deletion, and one that I share: permitting out of process deletion under the authority of enforcement of DS is taking DS enforcement away from being a tool to enable administrators to deal with disruptive conduct, and instead making admins arbiters of disfavored content. The dichotomy is real, as several committee members appear to feel that under appropriate circumstances an administrator acting under DS enforcement authority could delete a page (or I suppose an article) and be subject to review only at ARCA. The tools ordinarily used - topic bans, blocks, and page protections - are designed to reduce disruption by modifying user conduct. Deletion, uniquely, hides the information from ordinary readers, and that is why the comprehensive deletion process governs when there is consensus that such removal is acceptable. The committee should recognize that just as the AN community has special expertise in dealing with user conduct issues, Afd/Mfd/DRV and their ilk are where editors have particular insight these content issues. It would be concerning if the community's expertise were to be deprecated in favor of an enforcement mechanism made for user conduct issues. My personal preference here would be to see the committee take deletion off the table of DS enforcement options. Functionally equivalent would be to say the deletion process must be followed - a speedy deletion criterion cited, with review at DRV. Less satisfactory would be to limit such reviews to ARCA. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I happened to see mention of this discussion and am alarmed by the way it is going. Reading this user page, it is clearly a complaint about the bias of articles, which is to say, it is directly applicable to Wikipedia editing. It is not addressed at any editor (indeed, has timidly omitted usernames). It does, of course, favor a certain point of view, but editors should be allowed to favor a point of view they agree with when it is being excluded from articles. I say this even though I am pro-gun rights and suspect many of the individual edits were correct.
The consequence of (literally) arbitrarily excluding such content is to propagate the idea that Wikipedia is biased and to encourage editors to share information like this off-site. The consequence of that is that Wikipedia loses any ability to suppress deliberate cyberbullying, while the editors lured to partisan sanctuaries are more likely to fall under the influence of actual lobbyist money. In every way, the quality of discourse is degraded by deletions like this. And unless the arbitration decision specifically prohibited making any new pages about a topic, such deletions cannot possibly be valid arbitration enforcement. Wnt ( talk) 20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I just closed the DRV as overturn as the clear consensus of the discussion. Once you have completed your august deliberations could someone let me know if I can enact the clear consensus of the discussion or whether super Mario has won. Incidentally my autocorrect hates arbcom it keeps changing it to random or wrecked. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes (i.e., not content disputes requiring mediation) that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved. The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. (My bolding). Fish+ Karate 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
In my view "removal" in Arb/DS policy is meant in the sense it is used at WP:TALK or WP:BLP, that is an action that removes an edit or comment, it is not meant in the sense it is used in deletion policy or oversight policy. As we see from this case, it is not prudent to have the expansive construction of "removal" in Arb/DS to include deletion and oversight, which both have extensive articulated process, separate and apart. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wherever we draw the boundaries of arbitration enforcement, there will be fringe cases where admins may disagree on whether AE applies. ArbCom needs to decide whether it retains (or wants to retain) exclusive jurisdiction over the policing of AE boundaries. Today we're talking about page deletion, next time we may talk about the applicability of AE over protection in certain circumstances or some other admin action.
If ArbCom decides it retains exclusive jurisdiction over the boundaries, which I disagree with, then it needs to be prepared that any action that is declared by any admin as an act of arbitration enforcement will automatically escalate to ArbCom if someone disagrees with it. This seems to go against ArbCom's mantra that lower venues of dispute resolution ought to be tried first if possible (as is DRV in this case) before escalating to ArbCom in general.
As for the case at hand, I agree with RexxS and Ivanvector here. We ought to be narrow and cautious in the interpretation of AE provisions. While the ArbCom is allowed to make an (clarifying) amendment that DS covers page deletion, I don't think "removal" in the current wording includes page deletion, because as many other have pointed out, page deletion redacts the contents of the page history from public view. Deryck C. 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe my comment will help motivate a close. Countless hours are spent/wasted trying to decipher ambiguous PAGs. The obvious solution would be to clarify the ones that create the problems. As editors are so often advised, it is not about who is right or wrong, it's about the disruption, and admins & ArbCom need to apply this to their own actions. It appears ArbCom invests a measurable amount of time and energy looking for reasons to not take a case...thus, the creation of AE...which sometimes leads to more confusion under the guise of saving time and energy. What we're doing in essence is substituting input from several admins for discretionary action and passing it over to a single admin, and if they execute the action improperly, off with their heads. Fix the ambiguities. I can't see that either admin is at fault here; therefore, trying to afix blame is not resolving the problem. Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Option C in the survey below seems to be the only valid option. Because WP:AC/DS is simply delegation of ArbCom authority to admins, and ArbCom does not make content decisions, general decisions to delete content as such are outside the remit of AC/DS, absent some other deletion rationale. However, if admins are already empowered to delete something under other policy, then doing so, within those policy limits, and as part of AC/DS action would be legitimate. For example, AC/DS is most specifically about blocks and topic bans, but admins can do other things, like impose a "move-ban" on someone mis-using manual page moves, and require them to use RM process. I don't think anyone would argue that if someone were disruptively moving pages in an AC/DS topic area that DS could not involve a move ban, despite not being mentioned at the AC/DS page. The difference here is that the deleting admin is making what amounts to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT content decision about the material in the page (I have no opinion on the allegation that this was politically motivated). That's not a rationale for DS action, and not a rationale for deletion, so no combination of DS + DP/CSD results in "I can delete this because I feel like it". In this particular case, the motivation seems genuinely WP:POLEMIC-enforcement-motivated (though I don't think I agree with the assessment that the material necessarily qualified under POLEMIC). We cannot predict the future with certainty, but can make educated guesses. Since AC/DS is applied to controversial topics, and disruption correlates strongly with controversy, it seems virtually guaranteed that unrestrained deletion under AC/DS will result in suppression by admins of material they disagree with, by translating "is opposite my or the majority view in a dispute" into "is disruptive". Content by itself is not disruptive (outside some narrowly defined classes like vandalism with butthole pictures, or OUTING with personally identifiable information); editorial actions are.
On the follow-up questions: DRV is and should remain an obvious venue for review of any deletion. It's not "WP:Deletion review except for some people". WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:GAMING are important. We don't want a decision under which any admin who seeks to avoid DRV and general community scrutiny for questionable deletions can simply claim some vague AC/DS rationale and thereby close all avenues of appeal other than AE (which is a star chamber that leans toward presumption of guilt of anyone accused by an AE admin, and is generally hostile to editors who challenge an AE admin's decision), or ArbCom (which is even scarier to most editors, though actually fairer). In both processes, there is a strong bias in favor of the admin who acted, both in the minds of those reviewing the action and usually in the admin party's knowledge of the excessively legalistic procedures surrounding ArbCom and its AE board. ArbCom is not bound by precedent, so the fact that it has historically treated all AC/DS actions as appealable only to AE or ArbCom is irrelevant. Explicitly allowing deletion as a DS action is dangerous, and removing DRV as an examination venue would be a disenfranchisement of the community without any real discussion or notice. ArbCom deciding that its clan of AE "enforcers" how has deletion impunity and near-immunity (option B in the survey, or even option C with DRV excluded) would be a poor and controversial move. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that the approach proposed by AGK – to make it clear that deletions are not possible as an AE action – is the best way forward. I recognise the concern that SilkTork raises, but the alternative proposal is not the way to address that, in my view. As I understand it, SilkTork wants it to be clear that an admin may make a deletion under their ordinary authority under the deletion policy while also addressing an AE situation. However, by adding the extra mention of the deletion policy implies that the use of ordinary authority in relation to deletions is an exception. It admits the interpretation that the existing practice of an indefinite block with only the first year as an AE action is not permitted.
I suggest that AGK's approach / addition be preferred, and a relevant addition to the DS procedures state that:
The advantage of this approach, in my view, is that it covers not simply this deletion issue but any and all questions that could arise where ordinary admin authority is used. It makes the treatment uniform and avoids any claim that the deletions are treated differently. The second point would also cover any other area that might be questioned in the future. I don't know how much of this is already covered in the DS policy, but I think it is worth codifying. I looked at the policy quickly but didn't see any clear statement that makes this clear, and I don't know exactly where it would be added or how it would be worded. EdChem ( talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the notion that a AE admin should have less authority than a non AE admin, and so create a situation where someone creates a page in direct violation of an ArbCom sanction, yet an AE admin could only delete such a page outside of ArbCom protection, and so there is uncertainty (again) over where the matter should be discussed.
The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to enable normal editing and consensus-building procedures to function even in situations where there is substantial disruption; their purpose is not to replace such procedures. The idea that an WP:AE deletion is not subject to WP:DRV therefore seems patiently absurd, especially given that DRV is, itself, historically an extremely high bar to pass (ie. the nature of an appeal means that in the absence of a consensus the default is that the article would stay deleted.) More generally, the problem stems from situations where WP:AE matters intrude on content decisions; based on that danger, I would amend WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators to state that by default, any content-based changes resulting from an WP:AE action (including deletions) can be reversed provided there is a clear consensus via an established venue like WP:DRV, without requiring that that be a consensus of administrators; and that in cases where there is a disagreement, such consensus is presumed to be sufficient to establish that something is a content issue. While WP:AE isn't supposed to apply to content in the first place, it is inevitable that there will occasionally be overlap, and it's important to establish that in cases where that occurs, an administrator cannot override or ignore consensus on content issues simply by invoking WP:AE (and that the default, in cases of confusion, is to go with a broad consensus when it exists.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that earlier today I closed the AE appeal [3] and consequently restored the page in question. At the time, I was not aware of the existence of this clarification request (I have probably seen it on my watchlist some time ago, decided that it has no relation to my activities, and forgotten about it). I believe that the closure of AE is completely orthogonal to the request, since I believe nobody says the page may not be restored as a result of an AE closure. However, if anybody feels that the existence of this clarification request mandates that the AE request must sty open, feel free to unclose it.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: - I was hoping you (as the tweaking arb) could clarify how this is going to avoid looping round to the same problem - if it goes to AE, which would probably rule to adopt the broader interpretation of its own authority, then we seem set to end right back up again here as the "losing" side appeals the decision. The "appropriate forum" is only a symptomatic consideration since it would never be considered for DRV if arbitrary sanctions didn't/doesn't include deleting pages. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If the final motion passes (as it appears it will), you may also want to clarify
WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications. Will an undeletion request be considered to be the same as a request for modification of page restrictions and so may be made by any editor? Otherwise, "(a)ppeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", and for a page deletion, the deletion could affect many editors (an
ESSAY for example). Perhaps explicitly change it to something like "Requests to undelete pages or for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor."
But does that really belong in a section titled "Appeals by sanctioned editors", when that's not necessarily who will be appealing?
Mojoworker (
talk)
19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Most editors are loathe to read anything related to guns on Wikipedia, let alone comment. This issue is much broader than any disputed area. If this request were entitled for example "Authorize page deletion as a discretionary sanction" or some such, the feedback our arbiters would be receiving from our community would be very different. 2A0C:E300:0:0:0:0:0:23 ( talk) 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
To see if we need to take this discussion further, it may be helpful to take a quick survey:
(1) Proposed:
The Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions is amended at sanctions.caveats to read as follows:
For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; to delete pages; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.
where the text underlined is to be inserted.
(1) Proposed:
The Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions is amended at sanctions.caveats to read as follows:
For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; to delete pages outside of the deletion policy; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.
where the text underlined is to be inserted.
The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
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.
Putting this here because I'm not sure where else to put it, and feel free to remove if this isn't appropriate, but why is is that certian editors well be mentioned on the board when they're banned, like TDA, But others won't, like Zawl and Turtle neck ninja? 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 00:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.
There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard ( talk) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I just posted something similar to what I am posting below in a reply to Joe Roe, but think it is worth noting to the whole of ArbCom:
EdChem ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence under "Dismissing an enforcement request" presently reads: "When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches." I may perhaps be misreading, but my impression is that the relative clause is restrictive and should therefore not be set off by comma. I suggest the sentence be accordingly changed to "When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present that would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action. If appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches." I've also divided this into two sentences, which isn't necessary if it's desired to leave it as one. Thank you. – Roy McCoy ( talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to know the process of sending emails to the Committee. In the past I have sent emails to the Committee and I have gotten no response. Even if the response is basically telling me to "go away" that is a better response than ignoring me. Being transparent and letting me know that you received my email and that it's not in your SPAM box is appreciated and in accordance with ADMINACCT. I would appreciate at least a response telling me that you received my email. That I have a valid concern or question is irrelevant, I do deserve the respect of having my email answered. Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)