Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 109

Amendment request: Conduct of Mister Wiki editors (March 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Salvidrim! at 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors
 * Restriction lifting

Statement by Salvidrim!
In late 2017 I colluded with a friend and fellow WPVG editor, Soetermans, to pass an AfC draft, for which he had declared being paid by MisterWiki, without thoroughly assessing or reviewing the draft itself, and shortly after I myself entered into a paid editing relationship with MisterWiki. For this corruption of the purpose of AfC, I was restricted from approving AfC drafts indefinitely, appealable after 12 months. I only occasionally reviewed AfC Drafts before and will probably continue occasionally, at best, helping with the backlog (if the restriction is lifted). As there were no problems otherwise with any other AfC Draft I've approved (or article I've created myself) I'm not sure what "other work" I could present to support this request, and similarly more months/years are unlikely (IMHO) to change much, I think I can safely say "lesson learned" (moreso thanks to the desysop obviously); the problems weren't so much with my ability to properly review AfC drafts and moreso with the collusion overall. If you'd like examples of small articles I've created in the past year, you can check out Terreur 404, Dark Seal or Hwages. I'm happy to accept any trial period or rate-limit or review log, etc. if the Committee would like to be able to review the quality of my near-future AfC approvals before lifting the restriction entirely. Thanks in advance and apologies for once again taking up valuable Arbtime with this mess. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * re BU Rob: If the Committee would rather leave the restriction in force until/unless there is a community discussion supporting its removal (such as at AN or RfA, not that I'm even considering the latter yet) I think that would be a reasonable stance considering "community trust" was really the whole reason the restriction was even put in place. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * re AGK and anyone else: if it helps I'm happy to reiterate that of course I will not engage in paid editing again on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that hadn't been made clear for some after the desysop case but I've displayed as much on my own userpage, in bold and twice-large letters. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * re SilkTork: I've mentioned not even considering RfA2 for 2019 at this point, if ever. I just happened upon a Draft I would've liked to mainspace last week, mulled it over for a few days, and thought to myself maybe it might be helpful if I wasn't limited from mainspacing drafts anymore and perhaps the Committee would be amenable to lifting the restriction to allow me to chip in with the eternal AfC backlog. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  01:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * About the signature, it seems to be more of a rendering/display issue than a policy disagreement (it looks reasonable to me and Ivan but way too big to Iri and Floq, etc.), we'll dig into that, discussion is happening here for now User talk:Floquenbeam; sorry to highjack your TP for that Floq, feel free to move the thread to mine altogether :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  15:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved MJL
As a newbie who has never heard of this user before until just now, my views should not be weighed very heavily in this matter. However, the current topic ban is rather narrow in my opinion. I would possibly recomenned subbing it for a more broad ban on paid editing and a permanent restriction from moving AfCs to the mainspace. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the note about paid editing should stay up on the userpage. Transparency always helps with this sort of thing. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am rather partial to that note in bold letters if I do say so myself. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni (MW)
I see no issue with lifting these restrictions. Salv self-reported the only violations (search AE somewhere for it), and he follows the radical transparency lifestyle, so I find it highly unlikely he's lying here about doing paid-editing again. To SilkTork's point: I'm not sure I'd support a new RfA (also not sure I'd oppose), but I don't really see that as particularly relevant here. The odds of Salv being disruptive in this area if the sanctions are lifted are about zero, in my view, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to keep this particular sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also noting that I agree with Joe Roe that this should just be viewed as ArbCom allowing him to apply for the script, not ArbCom circumventing the normal process for being added to the full-protected AFCH checklist. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DannyS712
After reading 's note above about self-reporting, I got curious. The only AE log of a violation I could find was Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231. Reading through it was amusing (My face has been notified by my palm.), and after having reviewed that and reading through the case, I believe that this restriction should be lifted. I saw that ArbCom noted in the case that In contrast with some of the above conduct, Salvidrim! acted with commendable transparency during the case including providing supporting evidence and detail even where it may not have suited their interests to do so. They appear to have continued to act transparently, and I would like to believe that they would continue to do so. In short, I support lifting this restriction. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re MisterWiki editors)
Given Salvidrim!'s comments here, his conduct during the case and afterwards I think the best way to move forwards here is to lift the restriction with the rationale "lesson learned". Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not something that is really within arbcom's remit. If you have a problem with a user's signature you should discuss it with them on their talk page. If you cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion and there has been no previous discussion that led to a consensus (I have not looked) then you should engage in dispute resolution. It's unclear to me whether WT:SIG or WP:AN is the more appropriate venue for such discussions though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After looking through some archives of WT:SIG it seems that WP:AN would be the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq (re:Salv)
Perhaps ArbCom could make this transactional; accept the request if Salvadrim agrees to reduce the font size in his signature to be less obnoxious, otherwise leave it in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not kidding.

So, back on topic, I actually do think we can safely remove this restriction. I'm not sure how I will feel if/when RFA#2 comes along, but I'm at least comfortable that Salvadrim is not going to come within 100 yards of anything improper at AFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
I second Floquenbeam above. Salvidrim, if you want to be taken seriously a garish giant signature like that is really not helping. &#8209; Iridescent 15:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector (MisterWiki)
Support lifting the restriction. Salvidrim! has been nothing if not honest, transparent, and self-reflective throughout this entire ordeal, which a year and a bit in retrospect I continue to believe was an overconfident (?) lapse in judgement. This restriction was weakly supported by the Committee in the first place, and only on a third draft of proposals for article creation restrictions. I see no preventive reason to keep this in place.

Regarding the comments about Ben's signature, there's a discussion on Floq's talk page about it if anyone really wants to chime in. It's pretty far off-topic for this thread. (comment modified by request) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Samee
I also support lifting t-ban on Salvidrim! He's a trustworthy person. samee converse  17:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Please constrain discussion here to the scope of the appeal. The clerks may remove unrelated material.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting community comment. The most unfortunate aspect of the original conduct was the breach of community trust. In my view, the pertinent question here is whether that community trust has been rebuilt such that the community will tolerate Salvidrim!'s participation at AfC. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am sympathetic to the substance of your complaints, Salvidrim!'s signature is not relevant to this appeal. It is well outside our jurisdiction, given the original scope of this case. If you disagree with it, please take 's suggestions on how to proceed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Accept. (I know we'll need a motion for this, just noting my position.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Joe that any motion should explicitly say something to the effect of "Nothing in this motion overrides community processes for granting or removing access to the AFC Helper Script or related user rights." (where the related user rights refers mostly to new page reviewer). ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should like to know whether appellant continues to engage in paid editing of any form. An answer may be submitted privately.   AGK  &#9632;  22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume the answer to be no, but just as a note, an answer to this question can't really be private if the answer is "yes". ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like an unhelpful amendment. You should avoid giving the impression that we will not handle private emails in an appropriate spirit, particularly as there may have been points of nuance or detail (eg UPE happened after the case, but has stopped).  Nobody suggested we would seek to subvert the disclosure requirements of UPE, so why give the impression that in this case an answer can't be private?  As a phrase it sounds slightly sinister, it doesn’t seem helpful, and it certainly doesn't speak for my mind.   AGK  &#9632;  08:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The disclosure requirements for paid editing is that every instance of paid editing must be accompanied by a disclosure that identifies the employer, client, and affiliation permanently in an edit summary, a talk page, or the user page. If an editor were to privately tell us that they were violating these requirements, we wouldn't violate that confidentiality, of course, but presumably we would block the account quietly for failing to abide by the Terms of Use and disclosure policy. The requirement to disclose does not end when the paid editing ends. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While technically this appeal is allowable - you've served just over the 12 months minimum of the ban - I'm wondering why you want to request the ban lifted, especially as it wasn't an area in which you were that active, don't intend to be that active in going forward, and it's stirring a settled pot. Are you looking to clear your account of restrictions so you can ask for the admin tools back? SilkTork (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Salvidrim!, that makes sense. I became an admin because I wanted to do the occasional page move that required the deletion tool, and didn't like asking others to do it for me, but I was not intending to focus on doing page moves, so I understand your motivation. You were open and honest during the case, even when it wasn't in your best interest, and such behaviour encourages trust. It appears to me you made some errors of judgement, for which you have paid. I'm comfortable with allowing this. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * A possible complicating factor is that AfC reviewing is currently a quasi-permission enforced by restricting access to the AfC helper script (with more or less the same requirements as the NPP right). Across several discussions, there has been a strong consensus that paid editors should not have access to AfC/NPP, because these are the two areas that are most subject to abuse by UPEs. But I don't believe the question of whether a "paid editor" is just someone who currently engages in paid editing, or has ever done it, has ever really come up. If we agree to lift Salvidrim's topic ban, I don't think that should be construed as an ArbCom motion that he then must be allowed to review AfC drafts. His being added to the list of participants should be subject to the consensus of the AfC project. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be fine lifting the restriction for Salvidrim! to pursue approving and moving drafts in consideration for a ban on paid editing and that any drafts where Salvidrim! has a COI would be avoided entirely. Mkdw  talk 01:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with lifting this at this point. I don't think the question of the AfC script matters much - it's trivial to just move stuff from draftspace yourself, so the extra hoop there has always seemed a bit performative. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is actually that only qualified participants in the AfC project should review drafts (WP:AFCR); restricting the script is just the best way we have of enforcing that. Where the line between "reviewing drafts" and "moving a draft to mainspace" lays is a little unclear, but since the original remedy specifically used the phrase "reviewing articles for creation drafts", and Salvidrim has asked to "review AfC drafts", I think it's appropriate that we defer to the consensus of editors involved in the AfC/NPP project. They bear the brunt of abusive paid editing and tend to have stronger feelings on it than the community at large. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Recuse GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Conduct of Mister Wiki editors
Enacted - --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Let's get the ball rolling. Feel free to reword. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the point at the time, happy to remove now. WormTT(talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above. Mkdw  talk 19:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a copy-edit of the above to better match the language of past motions. No meaning was changed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Late support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  21:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Recuse GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * The slight change in wording is fine by me. Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Much better, cheers Rob. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (March 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by EllenCT at 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification Kingofaces43

Statement by EllenCT
Do the discretionary sanctions imposed on "genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed" apply to discussion of the decline in insect populations in general, or to anything in this edit in particular? I ask because Kingofaces43's revert, replacing a blog post and unreviewed advocacy organization sources opposed to a peer reviewed literature review, was accompanied by a warning on my talk page that they do. I am not the first editor to question whether overly-broadly construing discretionary sanctions is being used by Kingofaces43 to gain leverage in content disputes. EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * the review in question says, "Habitat loss by conversion to intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines. Agro-chemical pollutants, invasive species and climate change are additional causes."
 * If the decline in insect populations judged to be within the scope of restrictions on discussing agricultural chemicals, then I would like to take this opportunity to appeal my 2016 AE topic ban, as I have fully respected it until this issue arose today. EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * what do you think I am trying to game? There was already consensus to undo your revert because of the quality of your sources before I asked this question. In any case, my request to appeal the 2016 topic ban stands. EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I had forgotten the full scope of my topic ban after three years and have struck the talk page comments which violated it. (Clearly I would not have highlighted the violation here if I was trying to circumvent it.) I still hope to appeal the 2016 restrictions. EllenCT (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * understood; I withdraw the request to appeal and will take it up later. I'd like to try to address the controversy surrounding the sources without referring to organizations involved with pesticides, or even pesticides at all, for that matter, just to be on the safe side. EllenCT (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
EllenCT's topic ban is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed..

The aspersions about me trying to gain leverage in content disputes comment due to me actually following the DS in this subject seems to be in violation of that ban and isn't covered by WP:BANEX even here. I had to deal with another editor doing this at ARC about a week ago, so I would appreciate if arbs or clerks would enforce both the ban and DS on comments here this time.

That said, EllenCT already made this comment at a talk page claiming the Entomological Society of America, a major insect science organization, was a pesticide lobbyist organization. EllenCT already views the subject as covered by pesticides and made that comment also violating their ban about sources too. That should be a clear indication the behavior hasn't changed. The content stuff they bring up had already been agreed upon by other editors, not just me, so it that's more targeted pursuit.

For some background, EllenCT was one of the main editors that caused us to have to craft the GMO/pesticide WP:ASPERSIONS principle here in order to prevent patent battleground behavior in the topic where disruptive editors frequently engaged in shill gambits about pesticides to attack editors (more on that at their AE topic ban). That ban was mostly because they were often harassing and hounding me across pages, so I'm very concerned they want to appeal their topic ban (proposed in lieu of a one-way interaction ban) in order to edit exactly where I'm active again. Besides being mostly removed from GMOs and pesticides with that ban, they've had sanctions elsehwere. We've had recent flareups of those kinds of aspersions problems with other editors and lack of enforcement (something for another ARCA someday), but we definitely don't need to reintroduce another editor with this behavior.

To focus on the actual question, insecticides/pesticides are listed as one of the main causes of the declines in reviews, and the DS were made broad in both GMOs and pesticides to prevent gaming them. One can debate edge issues in other topics where a only a certain paragraph or section may truly fall under the DS, but this is an event with pesticides listed as a prominent direct cause. One could make an argument that broadly construed isn't even needed to cover it, but broadly construed removes any reasonable question. As already seen in past insect decline related requests, we're already having problems with edit warring and pesticide-based aspersions with related WP:GAMING, so it's definitely become a topic where both the DS/1RR and enforcement are needed to prevent disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

 * EllenCT is subject to some restrictions per an AE decision: . It seems to me that asserting here about Kingofaces, that his use of the GMO DS is "being used by Kingofaces43 to gain leverage in content disputes" comes close to "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors", and although her request here does not refer to "the actions of corporations or persons related to" GMOs, she is obviously discussing the GMO topic area.
 * I'd like to explain some issues about the relationship to the content in this request to the scope of the GMO DS, as well as the course of events in previous discussions. First of all, as I previously said here:, yes the decline in insect populations is within scope (and most certainly close enough to scope to mean that an editor pointing to the DS is not being disruptive), because the available source material attributes a large part of the decline in insect populations to the agricultural use of insecticides, which are clearly "agricultural chemicals". Second, EllenCT provides a diff to something that had said, but does not reference the subsequent discussion. As I note in the diff of my own comment above, I was considering coming here to pose a question very similar to EllenCT's myself. But I didn't, because GoldenRing subsequently said this: , indicating his agreement that insecticides are indeed within scope. So the question here seems to come down to whether an edit in which the content added by that edit does not explicitly mention pesticides, on a page where the DS apply, is somehow exempt from the DS that apply to that page. My understanding has always been that when DS apply to a page as a whole (and, again, there is no way to cover insect population decline without giving significant weight to insecticides), then it is reasonable to expect all editors editing the page (perhaps excepting minor gnomish fixes) to adhere to the DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ellen: "Agro-chemicals" = "agricultural chemicals". Your edit involves a source that specifically refers to agricultural chemicals.
 * More broadly, I think it may be helpful to add that several GM crops were created for the specific purpose of causing a decrease of insect populations on those crops: List of genetically modified crops. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As an additional bit of information, there was a Request for Clarification shortly after the original case, in which the DS scope was discussed extensively: . At that time, I and others raised the question of how broadly "agricultural chemicals" should be understood, and whether there was a danger of having the scope applied beyond the intended scope of the GMO case:, . The response from one of the two drafting Arbs was this: , which I take to mean that it should be understood as broadly as possible, in order to avoid having editors trying to argue about scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtable
This seems a reasonable request. King's been slapping DS tags on editors who tried to refer to studies showing bug decline since 2017, which even he admitted was "borderline". One of King's AE requests was closed as "out of scope" in January, with admins + a veteran editor (Collect) unanimously disagreeing with King. That said, a game changing high level review came out in February, and from that point WP:Due does seem to demand mention of pesticides in any article length treatment of bug decline. On the other hand, the Insect article is already over long, so only warrants a few lines on decline. The review itself lists the 4 main causes of the decline as habitat destruction, pollution, climate change & invasive species. (with pesticides later discussed as a sub cause under pollution, albeit a major one.). So there's no way the Insect article necessarily has to mention pesticides.

Due to current disruption, with King edit warring against multiple editors and trying to wikilawyer against SlimVirgin herself, it might be useful if we could have a ruling that clarifies whether the DS applies to the Insect article. There seems to be reasonable arguments either way, it would just be nice to have it settled so there is one less reason for contention.FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
As an admin trying to pick through all this, I agree that it would be useful for the committee to clarify whether any discussion of insect biodiversity / population decline falls within the scope of the GMO DS. An alternative way of asking the same question is whether this edit falls within the scope of the GMO DS?

Kingofaces43 has repeatedly insisted that it does (eg here), because (according to them) insect decline and pesticides are inextricably linked and some of the sources used in that diff also discuss pesticides' role in insect decline (I haven't checked whether this last part is true, but I assume it is). I'm still skeptical; IMO this is like saying any discussion of American manufacturing would necessarily fall under APDS. However, I'm prepared to be wrong on this. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It seems the original question has been answered/worked out. I don't think shifting this into an appeal is a particularly good idea for many reasons. Mainly, such an appeal really should go to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN. Yes, editors do have the ability to come straight to ARCA if they wish, but that means we don't have any type of community comment on the editor's recent conduct which is elicited at AE/AN. I rarely vote to accept appeals that bypassed an available community appeal option. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is up to the community whether a particular topic fits within enacted discretionary sanctions, generally. ArbCom only steps in if there is widespread disagreement among admins. I see no reason to break from that model here. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (April 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SheriffIsInTown at 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASheriffIsInTown&type=revision&diff=841345083&oldid=841015004


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASheriffIsInTown&type=revision&diff=841345083&oldid=841015004
 * Requesting the ban issued in this clause to be lifted

Statement by SheriffIsInTown
I was issued a topic ban from India-Pakistan conflict pages almost ten months ago on 15 May 2018. I am requesting this ban to be lifted now as a lot of time has passed since this ban and I have contributed in other topic areas since then. I have made a determination to change my behavior to avoid conflict when editing India-Pakistan conflict pages by engaging in discussions more and avoid the language or behavior which can make the editing more toxic which was the primary concern when the ban was issued that the participation of many editors in this topic area was making the environment toxic and the conflicts were spilling out to other areas/noticeboards.

Personally, This ban has affected me deeply as it was the first ever ban or block issued to me and I blame only myself for getting this stain on my editing. This ban has also affected my editing deeply as well, as it being a broadly construed, i could not improve those articles as well which were not conflict related, for example I was looking into splitting Nawaz Sharif into multiple articles but I could not do so as the foreign policy section contained content regarding relations with India. Similarly, I started First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership and Prime Ministership of Imran Khan after Imran Khan assumed power but I could not improve those articles especially when it came to content regarding relations with India and a lot has happened regarding these relations since Khan took helms of affair in Islamabad.

Thus citing these hardships and time which has passed since the ban was issued, I will like to request the committee to repeal this ban. I promise to be more careful when editing this topic area as iterated by me above. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, as there was an amendment request in June 2018 already and I was under the impression that once there was already an appeal at ARCA, then we can only file subsequent appeals at ARCA and not any other forum as we lose the right to appeal at lower forums such as AE or AN. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I will like to continue with my appeal if it is not too big a hassle for the committee since there is no requirement that we must appeal on other forums before appealing to the committee. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is in reply to the statement by 1990'sguy. I accept that I forgot about my first topic ban at the time I was writing this appeal. It was not a purposeful omission. That was a one month ban and by the time I was done reviewing all the relative material and policies before I could appeal the ban, the ban was already over. So, when I said that this ban has affected me deeply, I meant that.

I did not think it was necessary to mention the Judaism topic ban and interaction ban while appealing this ban. I do not think it was in the context of this appeal as these bans were already repealed.

The first topic ban violation was a misunderstanding as not just me but some other editors had this misunderstanding as well. The block which was issued was reverted after a couple of hours due to a successful appeal. The second topic ban violation was accidental in which I fixed a bare reference, the matter was brought in front of the committee and the committee opined on it with a lot of members concurring with the way the matter was handled. These violations and the AN report which they mentioned are 5 to 9 months old.

The statement by 1990'sguy seems to be giving a perception that I have been only editing using the reFill tool and that I should be editing 6 months to an year more the other topic areas without using the reFill tool. If that perception is correct then I will like to clarify that during my topic ban I have created hundreds of articles and I have also done extensive editing on the topic of Pakistani general election in 2018 in addition to fixing bare references. In fact, my editing is so diverse that I was recognized as one of the top ~ 250 medical contributors for year 2018.

They also stated that I pretend that there are no problems with my editing but rather that impression is incorrect as well, as I clearly stated in my appeal that I only blame myself for this ban.

Finally, I would like to state that I have done many wrongs and I was reprimanded for those wrongs. I have also promised in my statement above that I am determined to change my editing approach to the effect that it involves more discussion and less conflict. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 01:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I will like to answer some of the points raised by Uanfala. First, another editor tried to convey the message that I have been only editing using the reFill tool when I countered that with replying that this impression is not correct and that I have created hundreds of articles since this ban was enacted. Now, Uanfala is making a point that we accept that you created the articles but those were all stub so I would like to counter with the argument that most of the politicians become notable the day they get elected as their election makes them notable. I create the articles the day they get elected or in near future after that. The only content for which the reliable sources are present at the time are the sources which discuss their election so only a stub can be created at that time but that is not all at all, all the articles which I have created were not stubs and Tahira Safdar (first women chief justice of any court in Pakistan), First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership, and Humaira Bachal (an internationally renowned Pakistani philanthropist and female education activist) are just a few of those articles which were not stubs and that is simply because there was more content available which would suffice a full fledge i.e a non-stub article so here they are wrong in giving an impression that I only created stub articles. I did whatever I could do best while remaining in my interest area. I kept the candle burning even in hardships of multiple topic bans and an interaction ban. I kept contributing to and improving the encyclopedia wherever I could. I would also like to state that contributions and improvements no matter how minor they look on the surface should not be discredited but I have been seeing over and over that my attempts on fixing the bare URLs has been a source of criticism on the basis of my use of reFill tool to do that. My answer to those critics is that you can take a few minutes to fix a reference or you can use the tool and fix it in few seconds but nonetheless it's a contribution which do require someone's personal time and I have been putting a lot of it into Wikipedia whether I was using reFill or creating articles on politicians and judges or adding the 2018 election results on Pakistani constituency pages. Now, I recognize that India-Pakistan requires more scrutiny, thoroughness, and research and I think I have five years of editing experience behind me to put my efforts into that. This topic ban or the behavior which lead to this ban does not define my editing. I have edited that topic area in the past and it was not all bad if it would have been all bad then I would not have gone banless in that topic area for over four years. Yes, there were problems, yes, thing got out of control and I said or did things at times which were not worthy of my editing personality and I regret that. Those episodes of less than perfect behavior earned me the wrath of community and I did not remain unscathed. But again, that does not define me as an editor and I have done good in that topic area previously and I am willing to and offering to bring that goodness back into the topic area while changing approach which lead me to this ban. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have too much going on in real life but I will like to address the concerns of BU Rob13 and AGK in a detailed statement. I need some more time for that unless if the committee wants to completely turn over the ban in the meantime which I would welcome! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me to address your concerns. The real life event started on February 14, it reached its peak on February 27 and it has fairly died down by now so as Ivanvector and SilkTork rightly pointed out that the long term dispute between both countries is not going to go away in near future. And, it is possible that when I come back six months later for another appeal, there might be another standoff flaring up by then so there is never going to be the right or wrong time if we just go by the external political situation between these two countries. Furthermore, lifting of this restriction completely is going to allow me to edit the topic at my own leisure because it is not necessary that if you lift the restriction now then I will just start editing this topic right away but if you just allow me to edit 2-3 articles for one month then it is quite possible that I might not be able to edit those articles in that one month period. My appeal to get the TB lifted was in part to just get the clear slate so I do not have to worry about violating this ban anymore and not just to barge into the topic area and start editing as soon as the ban is lifted. With TB in place, I have to worry about the violation with every edit I make.

Not to contradict myself but just as a food for thought, let me throw another point of view in the mix here. For example, here is a thread which was recently opened at AN complaining about new editors fighting over the content on recent standoff. My point of view is that I can become a voice of sanity, in this case coming fresh off of the TB, I am going to be more careful but new editors did not taste the taste of the ban yet so they do not know how bitter it is 😉, that is why they will keep fighting but the editor who has already tasted the bitter taste of the ban would be more careful, so If allowed to edit, I can be a source of peace and sanity in that topic area. Furthermore, if you do not allow me to edit at a time when I can really contribute since there is something to contribute then what's the point of allowing it when there is nothing much left to contribute because articles about historical events in that topic area are already in a state of consensus so there is nothing much to change there.

Another food for though is that if you do not want to lift the ban in its entirety and your concern is the recent standoff then why not restrict it to the recent standoff i.e reduce the topic ban to the articles discussing 2019 India-Pakistan standoff.

But, if despite all the explanations, assurances and points discussed above, you still must restrict me to 2-3 articles then I will suggest First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership (not much to contribute there regarding the conflict between two countries but sparing that article would at least allow me to not "test the edges of the ban" when I work on the foreign policy section), Prime Ministership of Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif (I want to split the article in three and will touching the section related to relations with India), Prime Ministership of Nawaz Sharif (new article will be created where edges of the ban will be tested when foreign policy will be discussed although summarily), and Foreign Policy of Nawaz Sharif (new article which will discuss the relations with India).

The Judaism topic ban and relative interaction ban are over four months old and I think four months are good enough to test an editor. During those four months I have contributed constructively in different topic areas on English Wikipedia. I request you to consider those four months of constructive editing as a measurement of good behavior (without disruptive editing) which should help you to rest your fears of me wreaking havoc in ARBIPA topic area thus helping you to make the decision of lifting this ban in its entirety. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope the committee is not waiting for anything from me at this point. They can go ahead and make their decision. I will be more than happy to accept whatever it is. Thank you all in advance for your consideration! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
No opinion on this request, but for those (like me) who vaguely remember SIIT's request for a topic ban removal a week or so ago, it was for a different subject, and is found here:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing (SIIT)
I am the banning administrator. I have not kept a check on the contributions of SheriffIsInTown and, for various reasons, don't have the capacity to go digging. But, absent any evidence of poor behaviour in other areas, I support lifting this restriction. I think the recent lifting of an unrelated restriction by the community speaks well to this appeal also. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 1990'sguy
I would recommend declining this appeal for the following reasons:

SheriffIsInTown's claim that "This ban has affected me deeply as it was the first ever ban or block issued to me" is false, as SIIT was earlier topic banned from "Muhammad" in 2016.

Similarly, he has failed to mention his multiple topic ban violations and topic ban from Judaism and one-way interaction ban.

It was barely 8 days after the decline of a previous WP:ARCA appeal, that SIIT was subject to a report on WP:AN for his disruptive editing: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive300.

The first topic ban violation occurred when SheriffIsInTown was misrepresenting sock puppetry by one of the sanctioned user in this area who was getting site banned for his socking. Once SIIT saw he is not getting his way, then he went ahead to derail a sensible site-ban proposal against that editor by disrupting WP:AN and seeking sanction against others. SIIT was blocked and later unblocked for this topic ban violation.

The second topic ban violation was obvious since SheriffIsInTown edited Siachen Glacier. Soon this issue was brought to WP:ARCA for clarification. Per SIIT's statement on that ARCA, we can see that SIIT assumed bad-faith towards other editor instead of being thankful that the editor didn't reported SIIT, and SIIT asked for leeway towards topic banned editors like himself instead of promising to be more careful.

I am also surprised that SIIT confirms right above that he still doesn't understand the very basic procedure that he could appeal on WP:AN or WP:AE before appealing here.

In light of these incidents, I find it very unfair of SIIT to pretend that no problems with his editing existed before or after this topic ban.

The very fact that SIIT has continued to engage in same WP:BATTLE and WP:DE that originally resulted in sanctions and caused more problems, it seems that encyclopedia won't benefit from removing topic ban from this editor. I would instead recommend SheriffIsInTown to edit (which is more than just using the refill tool) for another 6 months -- 1 year without violating a topic ban or being subjected to more sanctions before appealing this topic ban again. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector (SIIT)
Note that of the incidents described above by 1990'sguy, the most recent occurred five months ago. Though 1990'sguy misrepresents that it was an "obvious" violation, see the full discussion where there was not a consensus that the specific edit nor the page in its entirety were off-limits under the restriction. Furthermore most participants agreed that SIIT's edit to that page (which I had taken flak for restoring) was constructive. The arbs mostly declined to comment as SIIT had already self-reverted. It should also be noted that the dispute between SIIT and the editor who advised them of the violation was already resolved by the time I stuck my ignorant nose into it and escalated it here.

Everyone here I'm sure knows that ARBIPA is a very contentious topic where no editor can expect to operate free of thorough scrutiny of their edits. If this handful of minor incidents is all that SIIT's opponents can come up with, then Sheriff has done a very good job of generally abiding by the restrictions. In addition, SheriffIsInTown's response to various unrelated minor incidents over the past year have shown a willingness to accept criticism and to improve as an editor. I'm confident there will be no further problems and I support unconditionally lifting the restriction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * echoing SilkTork's comment: if not now then when? How long is long enough? Shall we wait until India and Pakistan have fully resolved their border dispute, and give it even more time as a buffer so that the topic on Wikipedia is less contentious? I don't think that date is coming any time soon, to be honest. Is it fair to continue restricting an editor based entirely on external geopolitical events when they've made an honest effort to demonstrate improvement? Sure there have been some bumps in the road, but in the fallout from those incidents there is only evidence that SheriffIsInTown has learned from their mistakes (note for example that the Judaism topic ban imposed in November 2018 was successfully appealed only three months later, in the one other topic that is as contentious as this one). As of this edit you've got the banning administrator and four other editors who frequent the topic endorsing lifting the restriction, against one mostly neutral comment and one obviously ideological oppose.
 * If recognition of the problem, demonstrated effort to improve, and broad endorsement by exposed parties are not good enough for the Committee, perhaps the objecting members can come up with a satisfactory rehabilitation plan for SheriffIsInTown to follow, so that if we have to revisit this in six months at least he can have some idea of what to expect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the restrictions not being removed from the log is obviously an oversight which I have now corrected. It's hard to argue with your view about the "asterisk" implied in the appeal conditions; for what it's worth I'll offer my opinion again that time-restricted appeals are inherently punitive. Regarding loosening the restriction: I've typed something out a few times now but I can't get my head around how to carve out an exemption from India-Pakistan conflicts that will suit an editor wanting to contribute to articles on Pakistani public figures - there's going to be a lot of grey area, and it's difficult to enforce restrictions in this topic area already due to gaming and brigading and "pragmatic interpretations" on both sides without the restrictions themselves being unclear. The only way to fairly loosen this restriction is to remove it completely, and if the Committee is not comfortable going all the way there then imposing a period of probation seems fair. But if that's the way this goes, I strongly suggest the Committee direct that any further incidents should be brought to WP:AE for review; if it's left to the community it won't be long before we have another AN trainwreck like the NadirAli site ban from not really that long ago, which individual admins are ill-equipped to handle. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * we should chat about time-based appeal restrictions some other time, probably. Your proposal seems workable to me. Maybe can suggest a few articles they intend to work on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Uanfala
I really didn't want to comment here as I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I don't feel like enough of substance has been said so far. On the one hand, it's great to see that after the massive ANI thread that resulted in the topic ban from Judaism, SIIT has managed to stay out of trouble whilst continuing to edit at a good pace. He's created a large number of stubs about politicians, both from the US and Pakistan, and he certainly deserves praise for this work. But on the other hand, there is huge gap between creating articles consisting entirely in content like "So-and-so is a politician from such-and-such party who won that many votes in the election of year N", and navigating the enormous body of literature and the cacophony of contradictory sources about one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

I don't think there's anything in his recent experience that is comparable to what he might face in the India–Pakistan area. His very strong views on these matters, and the severity of the past problems (some distant echoes of which can be seen in two more recently raised issues, minor though they are), make it seem to me that starting to edit there again might be risky. And I really don't see a way to tell whether SIIT has indeed fundamentally changed his ways, or he simply recognises that being contrite is the only way he can get rid of an editing restriction which he sees as a stain on his honour.

And one minor point: being recognised as one of the top medical contributors is based on an automatic process that counts edits to medicine-related articles; I should be corrected if I'm wrong, but all, or almost all, medicine-related edits that SIIT has made consist in expanding bare urls using the semiatomated tool reFill.

In case the topic ban stays in place, I think it will be perfectly alright to add an exception covering the Imran Khan articles if SIIT is interested in working on them. – Uanfala (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
There has been an interesting variety of responses to last year's mass topic ban. Some editors, from both "sides", have drastically reduced their participation on Wikipedia; others have focused almost exclusively on anti-vandalism patrol and AfD; still others have continued to contribute content, including in contentious areas. SIIT is one of those; he has also engaged in considerable self-reflection. If the appeal is granted, he will also obviously be on a tight leash, because there's a very large number of people watching him. makes a good point, but I think it's a little too much to ask that an editor dive into a different but equally contentious area before an appeal; work in Pakistani politics is good enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean ARBIPA, surely? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
I concur with Vanamonde and will urge the committee to grant the appeal. He knows that his editorial activities will be immensely scrutinized and shall he return to his previous ways; the ban would be re-instated in a jiffy. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
I concur with Vanamonde above. One of the purposes of a topic ban is to allow an editor to demonstrate that they aren't narrowly focused on one area and that they do have the broader interests of Wikipedia at heart. Sheriff has more than adequately shown that and we should grant this appeal. It would be wrong, given their history of aggressive editing, to say I'm not concerned, but I'm sure that they know they're on a tight leash, so let's see if something positive can come out of a topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 01:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Have you appealed at WP:AE? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion. Once a sanction is appealed at ARCA, you lose the ability for further appeal on the substance of the block (e.g. its validity) at other venues. Per WP:AC/DS, such an editor "may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed" at AE/AN. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very hesitant to lift topic bans in this area right now, given the real-world events currently surrounding India and Pakistan. The conflict is heating up, and this area is today more contentious than it was when the appealing editor was topic banned. This seems like a profoundly bad time for an experiment in whether editors have sufficiently changed their editing habits to edit productively in this area. It's almost setting them up for failure. At the same time, I recognize it may not be fair to hit the pause button on all sanctions in a topic area based on real-world events. I do think SheriffIsInTown's editing in Pakistani politics shows growth. I'm decidedly conflicted and will await thoughts from other arbitrators. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline from me. I'm pushed over the line to decline by the topic ban from Judaism imposed in November 2018. As the community felt strongly that SIIT was editing disruptively in another contentious topic area fairly recently, I don't feel now is the right time to lift restrictions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those restrictions are still logged at WP:RESTRICT, which led me to think they were active at the moment. I'll need to rethink a bit if they aren't. My general thoughts are that "appeal in six months" has a big asterisk next to it implying "appeal after six months without disruptive activity". There was disruptive activity here warranting a topic ban and interaction ban. Add that to the original conduct and the extremely heated nature of this topic area at the moment and I'm not at the point of accepting. I wonder if there isn't some alternative loosening of restrictions here. For instance, perhaps we should specifically allow SIIT to edit the articles related to Imran Khan as an exception to the TBAN and see how that goes. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking carve out a narrow exception to 2-3 articles about Imran Khan, set a very small (one month, probably) timer for the next appeal, mostly just to ensure there's enough time for the community to scrutinize the edits as needed, and see how that goes. I don't see time-restricted appeals as punitive, but rather as time-saving. If we know that we want at least X months of good conduct before we would seriously entertain the idea of lifting a sanction, it saves both the sanctioned editor and us the time of submitting and declining an appeal that is too soon for us to feel there has been sufficient time for growth to occur. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Judaism topic ban was lifted three days before this request was filed. We've seen that you are able to edit constructively in non-contentious areas when you are topic banned from the areas you have difficulty in over the last four months, sure. We have not seen that, once a topic ban is lifted, you can return to a contentious area where you editing had previously been disruptive and edit constructively. I'd like to see that in either the Judaism topic area or in a small portion of the IPA topic area (via the type of compromise loosening of the topic ban I alluded to above) before giving you free reign. (And if you can't get to those 2-3 articles in the next month, that's fine. You can edit them when you're able to, wait a couple weeks to see if anyone takes issue with your edits, then appeal. No deadlines, etc.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read over the comments here, and SIIT's most importantly, and feel that lifting the TBAN may be fruitful. I would support lifting the ban, with a time period of "probation", that is extra scrutiny on SIIT's edits, to ensure they will not violation the terms of ARBIPA. If they are able to do that for say a 90 day period, then I'm confident no further scrutiny would be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I think I NEED an IPA now, thanks for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would decline the request. Coming hot off another appeal, I would prefer to see more time productively contributing and dealing with points of contention before restoring appellant's access.  I am also sensitive to the real-life dimension raised by Rob.   AGK  &#9632;  23:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The timing of the appeal given the heightened tension in the topic area is unfortunate, but the reality is that there has been tension since Partition, so there is unlikely to be a right time in the near future. Given SheriffIsInTown's good works on Wikipedia since the TB was imposed (not just using reFill, but creating articles such as Humaira Bachal), and an appeal which shows reflection, I feel the TB should be lifted. Indeed, if we're not going to lift it now, when and for what other reason would we lift it? The TB has served its purpose, and SheriffIsInTown is now less likely to indulge in the behaviour that led to the TB in the first place. SilkTork (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a little close to the lifting of the other restriction - these things usually go more smoothly if you appeal one thing at a time, and at a sedate pace that leaves enough time to judge the effects of each change. But these topics and the circumstances of the bans are different enough that it might not be very informative anyway. I think probation is a reasonable next step. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be alright with lifting the ban and going to probation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: India-Pakistan



 * Enacted - -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am willing to lift the restriction, but not unconditionally. I am in favour of probation as suggested by OR and GW. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Probation works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As proposer. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per my above comments, I think this is premature given the very recent topic ban from another unrelated topic area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  22:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Clarification request: Gun control (April 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoldenRing at 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Notification of Dlthewave
 * Notification of Bishonen

Statement by GoldenRing (Gun Control)
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. 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:


 * 1) Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions?
 * 2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", was Bishonen's undeletion a violation of WP:AC/DS?
 * 3) If the answer to 1 is "yes", is DRV a valid venue to review deletions carried out under discretionary sanctions?
 * 4) If the answer to 1 is "yes", while we're here, we may as well consider the substance as well:  Was deleting this page in line with policy and a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion in an area subject to DS?

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 don't know how much clearer I can make my rationale, but I will try: The policy says, "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed." The deleted page is a long list of quotes of edits made by other editors which Dlthewave himself thinks is "important to highlight the long-term pattern" of which their AE complaint is "a continuation" (diff). This is plainly a collection of negative evidence, and the attempt to lawyer around the language by not giving diffs by quoting the content of the diff and giving a link to where it can be found is, in my view, entirely specious. Dlthewave themselves said in the diff I have just quoted, "It is understandable that this may be viewed as polemical, howeveri feel that it is important to highlight the long-term pattern" - or, in about as many words, they know it violates policy but think their cause is more important. GoldenRing (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at. As far as I know, this page was not the subject of any substantive discussion prior to the deletion.  Dlthewave brought an action at AE and another editor pointed out this page; I asked Dlthewave to explain how it was not a violation of POLEMIC (diff).  Two and a half days later I had received no response (diff), despite Dlthewave having edited the AE complaint in that time (diff), so I went ahead and deleted it.  I do not claim any of the speedy deletion criteria as justification for the deletion, but rather the authorisation of discretionary sanctions.
 * Regarding your question about blanking v deletion, I took the word "remove" in WP:UP to include deletion and it is routinely interpreted this way at MfD, where POLEMIC is generally accepted as grounds for deletion, not blanking. Although there is some controversy about where the line between keep and delete outcomes is, no-one argues that POLEMIC is not grounds for deletion.  Pages with similar content are deleted at MfD, see eg 1 2 3, especially the last one which likewise claims to document whitewashing of an article; there are many others in the archives of MfD.
 * My reasoning for doing this as an arbitration enforcement action rather than through community processes was (and is) that maintaining such a page is not conducive to collaborative editing in the topic of gun control; that gun control is an area where discretionary sanctions have been authorised; and that administrators are expected to use DS "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles" (WP:AC/DS). If administrators working AE are suddenly expected to use community processes to resolve disputes, then what was the point of authorising DS?
 * To answer a couple of procedural queries I missed in my last reply, Dlthewave met the awareness requirements at the time of the enforcement action because they had started a request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (the deletion happened in the context of this request) and I don't see how an editnotice is relevant to this particular action as it doesn't involve a page-level editing restriction. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am seriously considering other ways out of this and have been for some time. Nonetheless, I think the committee needs to clarify whether deletion is a valid enforcement action; it is clear (most particularly from the comments at DRV and also those here) that a significant portion of the community think it is not, while I can't see how deletion is different to any other administrative action done under DS and authorised by the "other reasonable measures" provision of DS.  In the meantime, I am a little unsure what you mean when you say, "such a deletion should meet with policy."  There are a great many administrative actions taken routinely that are not authorised by policy but are authorised by discretionary sanctions: administrators cannot normally place topic bans, interaction bans, 1RR restrictions on users or pages, consensus-required restrictions, civility restrictions or BRD restrictions and yet these have all been applied unilaterally by administrators since the beginning of this year.  Ordinarily, any of these would require a community consensus process (eg a discussion at AN for a topic ban) but are valid as unilateral actions because they are authorised by discretionary sanctions.  How is deletion any different?  Ordinarily it requires a community consensus process at XfD (ignoring for the moment speedy deletion criteria) but here it is a valid unilateral action because discretionary sanctions are authorised.  And, in the end, what is more serious?  Deleting a user page?  Or banning a user?  If you trust admins with the latter, you should trust them with the former.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point about arbcom needing the consent of the community to function and to be a positive force in the community. At the same time (and I know this is itself somewhat controversial in the community) my understanding is that all of the powers granted to administrators in discretionary sanctions are available because the community has ratified the arbitration policy which makes arbcom the final, binding decision-maker in disputes, not because of explicit policy changes.  As GMG points out, the usual forms of DS are subject to a "boiling frog" effect; and this action is likely to be controversial not because it is invalid but because it is unusual.  Posting it at DRV has involved a lot of users who are not accustomed to dealing with DS.If I had deleted a featured article on the main page without a very good reason, I would expect the action to be overturned at AN sharpish.  That is the outlet the community has for controlling unilateral enforcement action with consensus.The committee still need to decide whether "other reasonable measures" means what it plainly says or rather "other reasonable measures except deletion," which some here are advocating.  The committee still need to decide whether "All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful" means what it plainly says or rather "All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper unless another admin unilaterally decides the action was obviously outside the scope of DS," which some here are advocating.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a good point and I will strike my fourth question. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to correct a few things you have said:
 * It is absolutely prohibited to unilaterally modify arbitration enforcement actions; seee WP:AC/DS. BLP and COPYVIO are not the only absolute prohibitions.
 * All enforcement actions have what you describe as "the usual immunity to reversion", whether they are valid or not because all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal in one of AE, AN or ARCA succeeds; see point 4 of WP:AC/DS.
 * We do not prohibit collections of negative information about other editors "for reasons of BLP" (if that were so, they would never be allowed) but because it's not a civil, collegial thing to do, though sometimes necessary for use in legitimate dispute resolution processes.
 * And lastly, the elephant in the room: no careful reading is necessary, the whole page consists almost entirely of quotes of other editors statements at talk page. By what sophistry is this material not related to the editors who made those statements??? GoldenRing (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope no admins follow your interpretation of policy; it is a recipe for desysopping. The simple reality is that the community has accepted the arbitration committee as the final, binding decision-maker in conduct disputes and, short of changing the arbitration policy, the community cannot override its decisions.  Some of its decisions are to authorise discretionary sanctions; to make administrator actions under DS appealable only to AE, AN and ARCA; and to give such actions a presumption of validity until they are overturned in a proper appeal.  If you doubt this, you might find the level 2 desysop of Yngvadottir for a single instance of overturning a controversial AE action instructive (in fact an AE action which was only confirmed by the committee in a 6-5 vote).  GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I struggle to articulate what such a motion would even mean in practice. Essentially, I guess it means admins can delete pages as an enforcement measure so long as the page meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion or a consensus to delete exists at the relevant XfD venue.  The only difference making deletion available under DS would make is that review would be reserved to AE, AN and ARCA rather than the usual deletion review process - yet PMC has argued for option B with review carried out at DRV!  If "deletion done under DS" is going to be "deletion in line with deletion policy and reviewed at DRV" then it's indistinguishable from ordinary deletion and there's no point including it in DS - just propose a motion to exclude it.I do still feel strongly is that the existing DS wording allows deletion as it allows any other measure, and reserves review of such deletions to the arbitration appeal venues.  The only argument I can see being made to the contrary is AGK's, which essentially says that a sanction placed on a page reading "This page is subject to 1RR" is not a sanction placed on a page.  I don't understand it.  Unless someone can propose another construction of the DS wording that excludes deletion, the now-closed DRV was out of process.Whether deletion should be allowed under DS is another question and not one I feel strongly about either way.  As an enforcing administrator, I would probably prefer that the committee exclude deletion altogether from DS than to add further complexity to the scope and review processes for DS.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To some extent I agree with you, and had I known what the outcome would be, I would have sent this to MfD. I saw AE deletion as a way to do this without drama, and clearly that was a mis-judgement; however, I would contend that much of the drama was not because of the AE action itself, but because it was sent to DRV out-of-process.  And leaving the answer to the question "is deletion a valid AE action?" as "maybe" is not useful to AE admins who would like to know what the scope of sanctions possible under DS is.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that only deletions outside mainspace should be valid AE actions? What about actions that are also valid under one of the CSD, but which is marked as an AE action?  I can easily think of cases in American politics, for instance, or indeed gun control, that should be deleted under CSD but which an admin might want to mark as an AE action to avoid a highly dramatised DRV.  I do struggle to think of a valid mainspace deletion outside of the CSD, but I don't want to say it couldn't happen.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the optics of using DS to avoid scrutiny, but you also need to bear in mind that DS are authorised in areas where community processes have already broken down and are already ineffective, usually because there are large groups of otherwise-productive editors on either side of the dispute. Picking up your AP2 example, I think the likely outcome at MfD for such a page would be deletion.  But I would choose to delete as an AE action every time because I know that if I send it to MfD, a crowd of fringe-supporters will emerge from the woodwork to argue against deletion; the same crowd will turn up at the inevitable DRV; and they will kick off at least three complaints at ANI in the course of proceedings and likely another two afterwards trying to contest the outcome.  DS are indeed supposed to circumvent these highly-controversial community processes in highly-controversial topics.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So why don't all TBAN requests go via AN? Why do we allow AE to circumvent the usual community process of placing bans?  GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A some at WT:DRV have noted, your proposal leaves it unclear whether a deletion within existing deletion policy can be marked as an AE action to make it only reviewable at arbitration venues. GoldenRing (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave
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)

Statement by Bishonen
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 &#124; talk 18:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

Statement by
Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions? Based on the argument by 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)

Statement by Ivanvector
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 would think that the situation described by Black Kite, in which an editor subject to an AE restriction creates a page in violation of that restriction, would be dealt with under WP:G5, and as a result the deletion itself would not be AE enforcement and the venue to review deletion would remain DRV. But maybe we are over-generalizing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, as others have tried to point out but are apparently falling on deaf Committee members' ears, the policy which directs the deletion of English Wikipedia content is the deletion policy; to the best of my knowledge it is the only policy which does now or has ever had community consensus for deletion of an entire page (as opposed to revision deletion, suppression/oversight, or other actions which maintain a visible history). Observant editors will note that deletions directed by the Arbitration Committee are not mentioned in that document.
 * Quoting from the deletion policy's companion guideline, Deletion process: "" (bold in original, underline added) It's been said by several others here and elsewhere already: arbitration enforcement is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The deletion process document also specifies in no uncertain terms that deletions may only be performed outside the scope of the policy when ordered by the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Now quoting from the arbitration policy, which under the heading "policy and precedent", reads: "" (emphasis added)
 * The Committee members now arguing that content deletion is in fact within the scope of arbitration enforcement are engaging in modifying the deletion policy by fiat. While GoldenRing and the members of the Committee may have very good reasons for wanting to allow content deletion as an arbitration power, the deletion policy does not currently permit this and the arbitration policy explicitly forbids it. If the Committee wishes to reserve these powers for itself, a community discussion is required to modify both policies. Unless and until those discussions happen, the Arbitration Committee is not authorized to delete pages, and likewise has no power to authorize administrators to unilaterally delete pages in the name of Arbitration enforcement.
 * Following on that argument, GoldenRing's deletion must be considered to have been performed under the auspices of speedy deletion, since arbitration enforcement cannot authorize that action, and there was no discussion. It is very clearly stated in the community's policies that the venue to dispute a deletion, speedy or otherwise, is WP:DRV. The Committee insisting that this deletion can only be appealed to the Committee is, again, modifying policy by fiat. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you're inventing policy again with your latest comment. As it stands, deletion under discretionary sanctions is forbidden because it is not expressly permitted, not the other way around, because the deletion policy (the only policy directing deletions) sets out when deletion is allowed, and expressly forbids all other deletions.
 * @All the arbitrators: your straw poll is invalid. If you want to modify the community's deletion policy to permit deletions as arbitration enforcement, then do the work to modify that policy. That means putting it to the community in an RfC, not pretending that you can decide that that's how things are without any community input. The way this discussion is going is an alarming endorsement of admins doing any damn thing they please under a veil of arbitration enforcement, and of the Committee retroactively altering its own procedures to suit any such action. In this case, the Committee retroactively endorsed an out-of-process deletion, retroactively forbade discussion of the out-of-process deletion in the usual community forum for discussing improper deletions, retroactively endorsed (by omission) threatening with desysopping the administrator who restored the deleted page per the normal community expectation for discussing deletion challenges, and is attempting to retroactively modify the scope of standard discretionary sanctions to justify the entire affair. This entire discussion is an embarassment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that the deletion review was closed five days ago now as "clear consensus is that this deletion should be overturned per the deletion policy", but the page remains blanked with the DRV notice. Presumably this discussion has had a chilling effect by which administrators are not carrying out the community's desired action out of fear of Arbcom reprisal, and for that matter, this is not only not an issue that the community cannot resolve, but it has already been resolved, other than this thread sitting open blocking anyone from doing anything. This request is close to entering its third week; to quote The Colonel, "get on with it!" Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the distinction between "to delete pages" and "to delete pages outside of the deletion policy" is moot, as deletions outside of the deletion policy are already not permitted; any deletion that is carried out with a rationale of arbitration enforcement is inherently outside of the deletion policy. None of this is putting an "AE admin" at a disadvantage over a non-"AE admin", (and when did we invent that distinction?) it simply means that if they wish to delete a page, they can do so under one of the methods and criteria already approved by the community, which is already a very broad scope. For example, in the situation you described, a page created in violation of an Arbcom restriction can be deleted under the community's criterion WP:CSD. There's no need for an Arbcom back door here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller
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)

Statement by Black Kite
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)
 * It is SOP to undelete pages whilst they are at DRV so that non-admins can assess whether the close was correct - for example, whether a CSD deletion actually met the CSD criteria, or in the case of AfD whether the discussion comments were actually valid. In this case, with no AFD or standard CSD, then assuming the DRV is valid the page would have to be visible as otherwise no non-admins could make any judgement about the deletion. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
If an administrator erroneously deletes a page as an Arbitration Enforcement, when the page is not eligible for deletion under that criterion, they cannot claim the usual immunity to reversion of the action that we reserve for justified AE actions. From 's own statement, the relevant criterion upon which they are relying is: But nobody reading Special:Permalink/881981663 carefully would conclude that information on that page is "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)
 * Response to . Contrary to what you think, BLP and COPVIO are the only absolute prohibitions to undeletion of content for obvious reason, see Deletion review where this is documented. Any other prohibition is subject to IAR and 'sanctions.modify' is no exception. It is merely a procedure of the Arbitration Committee and has no status greater than WP:policies and guidelines (which actually don't even recognise 'procedure of the Arbitration Committee' as policy or guideline). ArbCom must not confer on itself greater powers than the community is pleased to grant. It is free to create its own procedures, but does not have authority to create policy: that is the prerogative of the community. In the case of a conflict between a guideline like Deletion process and an ArbCom procedure, then I suggest common sense needs to be the tie-breaker. The damage done to the encyclopedia by denying undeletion of a page when requested at DRV need to be balanced against the damage done to the encyclopedia by a temporary undeletion. In this case, the balance is obviously in favour of allowing undeletion.
 * "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.
 * I concede your point that BLP concerns are not the only reasons to disallow collections of negative information about other users; although that would be the rationale behind collections of negative information about living persons who were not editors.
 * I completely deny your last point. All content in the encyclopedia is provided by editors: that is undeniably not what was intended by 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.
 * The elephant in the room is actually your error in attempting to convert a possibly justifiable deletion of a page (by normal process) into an AE action. AE actions were granted the privilege of immunity from reversion for a particular reason (the problems of second-mover advantage), in order to solve intractable problems of civility enforcement. Admins must be careful not to abuse that privilege by claiming AE action in borderline or invalid cases, otherwise the community may lose faith in the necessity for having such an exemption to normal admin procedures (WP:WHEEL). --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room is actually your error in attempting to convert a possibly justifiable deletion of a page (by normal process) into an AE action. AE actions were granted the privilege of immunity from reversion for a particular reason (the problems of second-mover advantage), in order to solve intractable problems of civility enforcement. Admins must be careful not to abuse that privilege by claiming AE action in borderline or invalid cases, otherwise the community may lose faith in the necessity for having such an exemption to normal admin procedures (WP:WHEEL). --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall

 * I think this matter raises novel issues about procedure. Wikipedian culture takes deleting pages very seriously, and deleting a page out of someone's userspace feels quite violative to me.  I was appalled to learn that a page that purports to describe the rules says that AE deletions can be reviewed at the AN but not at DRV.  I feel that in the (probably relatively rare) situation where it's appropriate to review an AE deletion without direct scrutiny from Arbcom, then the most correct venue would be DRV.  But I also feel that deleting a page as an AE action is the kind of thing that Arbcom should normally supervise directly, because an AE action should normally be about an editor's behaviour rather than a matter of content.  Therefore the scrutiny should normally happen here.— S Marshall  T/C 21:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --- The deleter's position is that this could not be justified as an in-process speedy deletion and was done purely as AE (diff). I also don't fully agree with my friends RoySmith, Hobit, SmokeyJoe et. al. when they say DRV is mainly about content.  I feel that what DRV is mainly about is the analysis and critique of sysop judgement calls and use of discretion.  Interestingly, in the decade or so since I became heavily involved in DRV, we've never reached a consensus to ask Arbcom to desysop anyone -- which is why there's never really been any overlap between the two venues.  We've found wrong calls, because sysops are only human, but we've never found serious misuse of the mop.— S Marshall  T/C 12:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators, you're in the process of reaching a bad decision here, and it's worrying that you're reaching it with such glacial slowness. I think you're already overworked and you don't have the attention to spare on reviewing AE decisions in a timely way.  Nobody has ever produced an example of a deletion that should properly be reviewed at AE; and we already have a prompt, effective, low-drama and trouble-free way of reviewing deletions at DRV; so it would be appropriate for you to make a decision explicitly pointing all deletions to DRV.  You can do so with every confidence that DRV will call on you if you're needed.— S Marshall  T/C 18:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by User:SmokeyJoe

 * This clarification is not about Gun control, but is about whether, in general, page deletion is a reasonable measure of arbitration enforcement
 * Page deletion is not a reasonable measure of arbitration enforcement. Certainly not if the page is not directly subject to an ArbCom ruling.  Exceptions would be considered extraordinary.
 * If page deletions were subject to AE admin arbitrary unilateral deletion, this would amount to a secret punishment. The user involved can't read the page deleted.  The wider community can't read what was deleted.
 * What is going on here is a turf war over the powers and scope of ArbCom. Not by ArbCom directly, but by their delegates, which is worse.
 * ArbCom is supposed to stay out of content decisions. Deleting a page containing content is most definitely a content action.  This page in question, while not content per se, is a page directed at content decisions.  That's pretty close to content.
 * This issue is the same as the deletion of Universa Blockchain Protocol, discussed at Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9. That one was overtly a content page issue.  I think this is resolved with agreement that deletions like this should additionally cite WP:CSD, which was agreed in hindsight to have applied.
 * WP:Deletion policy is written in clear cut language. WP:CSD is even clearer: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here."  If ArbCom AE admins also have deletion discretion, add it to CSD, for the record, and to ensure that the community is on the page.  ArbCom should not be responsible for undermining the validity or respect afforded to WP:Deletion policy.
 * WP:DRV is a long standing very successful forum and process. It is not an enforcement process, but a continuing education exercise.  A measure of its success is that lack of repeat culprits being dragged through it.  DRV is the highest court for content decisions.  There is no cause for carving out deletions that are not reviewable by DRV.  Temporarily undeleted is an essential part of DRV if you consider nonadmins to important in the management of the project.  There is already a sufficiently conservative culture at DRV for being responsible with copyright, attacks, and BLP issues.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AE action to blank the page, protect the page, and block every user associated with the page, would not have been offensive to WP:Deletion policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Such deletions do not need to meet our deletion policy". AE deletions do not need to meet policy?  Policy does not need to read at face value?  What is the policy on AE deletions?  ArbCom has broad monarchical reserve powers, but to use them to authorize delegated policy-exempt CSD?  That's a characteristic of a police state.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cryptic and RoySmith that policy clarity would be a good thing. Documentation at WP:CSD pointing to WP:AC/DS would be a good thing.  It would mean that Twinkle could easily link to it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In Arbitration_enforcement_log, there are three instances of deletion:
 * (1) User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles deleted for violating POLEMIC. GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (2) Sergio Urias deleted for reasons explained here. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (3) OYCH1961 (talk · contribs) blocked one month for disruptive editing, as described at this link. He recreated a POV-fork draft of the Senkaku Islands article that had just been deleted at WP:MFD. Editor was previously notified by Qwyrxian. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) explicitly reviewed here. (2) and (3) explained within deletion policy.


 * A bigger concern are the DSGS deletions that ArbCom seems to have delegate and does not supervise or review.
 * General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies includes 15 mainspace deletions.
 * General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant lists others, including Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike, by User:NeilN and User:BU Rob13
 * With User:BU Rob13 here having personal involvement of the overreach of ArbCom in overriding deletion policy, I think he should recuse himself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13, I accept that that deletion was part of a history merge, not a real deletion. However, there may be some problem that your log summary giving implied approval to the previous DS deletion, of a mainspace page. Have you personally ever done a DS deletion not within Deletion Policy or CSD?  Have you ever explicitly encouraged or approved of another to do DS deletion not within Deletion policy or CSD?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is an outrageous overreach, I can only guess unintentionally. It would mean that a claim of arbitration enforcements prevents the matter being even discussed, until the glacial ArbCom mandated processes are exhausted. Where is the evidence that ArbCom or its appeal procedures are superior to the project-old DRV process, when it comes to shining light on abuses involving deletion?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * “before being ... discussed at another venue”
 * Arbs creating a motion creating a gag order on *discussing* a problem with ArbCom overreach in a process created by arbs? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Arbs are continuing to think it "looks good", to fail to confirm that deletion is NOT a valid AE action, and then to draw even more power to themselves, the power to gag mere discussion, of ArbCom's AE enforcement overreach in cutting across deletion policy. This is not ArbCom merely writing policy, it is ArbCom breaking firmly entrench policy. I guess we are going to need that RfC at WT:DRV to rebuke this motion."All queries or appeals regarding arbitration enforcement, including those felt to be out of process or against existing policy, must first follow arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before being reversed or discussed at another venue."
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest:

"All queries or appeals regarding arbitration enforcement, including those felt alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first follow arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before being reversed or discussed at another venue."
 * * This isn't about feelings.
 * * There is no need to address nonexisting policy.
 * * At the DRV, the alleged against policy deletion has been thoroughly discussed by the community. Has anything been wrong with that.  The DRV closer is waiting for the ArbCom procedure (here) before reversing.  That is consistent with your motion.
 * * Gagging project-relevant discussion anywhere, whether User_talk, or a formal DRV discussion, is not acceptable.
 * * There is an interesting pretense that the temp-undelete is not really a reversal. I think that should be considered acceptable.  Temp-undeleted blanked pages are not allowed to be edited or copied.  Denial of longstanding temp-undeletion practice will me DRV goes back to the practice of referring to off-site cache copies, which is not desirable.
 * * The venue of reversal is unimportant redundant wordiness and is not concise.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Noting now User talk:GoldenRing, it is patently absurd that AE enforcement procedures should be the mandated first step in reviewing and appealing abuses of deletion policy. Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24 is an exemplar of orderly community discussion reaching consensus in a timely manner.  AE review in contrast is admin-only, subject to ArbCom pseudo policy authorized by fiat.  Was that User_talk discussion formal?  ArbCom needs to get out of writing and re-writing policy, deletion policy in particular, and ideally simply declare "WP:Deletion policy-violating deletions are not valid AE action".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit
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)
 * A heavy reliance on WP:CONTENT (an essay with about 30 edits) to argue that ARBCOM has utter control of anything not in mainspace is quite the power grab. I'd urge members of the committee to be very very careful making the claim that ARBCOM can do whatever it wants outside of mainspace because it "isn't content". Hobit (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not making a claim about what is and isn't content. I am instead saying that claiming ARBCOM has complete jurisdiction over everything not in mainspace is a large power grab.  Are you claiming ARBCOM has been empowered by the community to delete any content that isn't in mainspace?  And you are using an essay to justify that?  I'd rather go with something more clearly on-point "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."  Taking deletion policy and moving it from the community to ARBCOM doesn't make sense in that context.  The policy for how to deal with deletion is clear.    And "The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated." is making it clear that ARBCOM doesn't get involved in content.  But that doesn't mean it has jurisdiction over everything that isn't content.   Hobit (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith
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've done a lot more reading of the full history of this. My earlier comments notwithstanding, I agree with User:SilkTork that having two parallel discussions in different forums is a bad idea.  At this point, I suggest that DRV defer to ArbCom on this one.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Cryptic is exactly right. If the end result of this is to confirm that AE can include speedy deletion, then WP:CSD needs to add a category for it.  My big fear (as somebody who also does a lot of temp-undeleting at DRV) is that given the current discussion, I could very easily see myself having undeleted this and then finding that I'd accidentally run afoul of a policy I didn't really understand, and put my mop at risk.  If this fell under WP:G9, or a new G-whatever specifically for AE, it would have been clear that this was out of bounds.  Clarity is a good thing.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 27 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)

Statement by Sandstein
While I disagree with 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)

Statement by Cryptic
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)

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. —Cryptic 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GMG
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. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I've been saying for a while now that ACDS is also wholesale rewriting of our blocking and banning policy, but I think most people have just gotten used to it. So I don't expect most people will take this comment seriously, and if they do, it's just because the water got a little hotter than they're accustomed to yet. But them's the breaks when you allow ArbCom to rewrite policy while claiming they don't write policy.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

 * I too frequently make undeletions for review at Del Rev. I approach it a little differently,so I would not suggest that either their approach or mine is authoritative, nor do I presume to say what other admins do. . I have never refused to undelete for DR, except for copyvio, or if the request is disruptive or unnecessary. I interpret the rule as not requiring it, as merely making the necessary provision to not do so as a special situation. (And if it would apparently help the discussion, I do not wait for a request-sometimes the person bringing it to DR does not know its possible--and the person bringing it often is the author of the content)    Since Arb Com authority does not extend to content, neither does AE.   Though community consensus cannot override AE, neither can AE override the basic principles of community editing. If I rewrote an article summary to conform to my idea of what the true meaning of an arb com decision required, I could not call it AE to prevent others from  reverting my change. Just as I cannot rewrite under AE, I cannot remove it under AE.   AE is dangerously inflexible even if used in the ordinary way--giving individual admins sticky discretion over content in such a direct way as to permit them to delete by AE,  is not within a reasonable scope. AE is not a free pass to anarchy; because of the stickiness, it requires even more careful judgement than other admin actions. If anything, we need how to restrict the scope rather than add to it. If the scope of AE is to increase, it can only do so by a change in arbitration policy by the community.   DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am quite confused by the reasoning in the arb section. The basic rule of arb policy is that arb com has no direct authority over content.  (its jurisdiction with respect to conduct can and   sometimes does affect content, which is inevitable because the two are related, & because many conduct disputes are derived from content disputes). Since arb com has no direct authority over content, no remedy it enacts can give anyone authority over content, and no DS it enacts can allow for authority over content. Therefore, any admin acting under AE may not do so in such a way as to directly edit content. Editing content includes redirecting, or deleting, or undeleting.  Arb com cannot do such actions as arbs, or authorize them as AE. They do have jurisdiction over any admin pretending to do them as AE.    DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , In addition to the pages strictly speaking in content space, I really cannot see the rationale for giving arb com or AE any direct control of anything except their own pages. People employ user space for many purposes, most having to do with the preparation and discussion of content. What is on those pages is not any direct business of arbcom--or AE. They already have all the power they need by the ability to sanction editors. Unlike possible speculations for what harm might be caused that is out of reach of speedy/MfD/office,  this discussion was started by a  use of AE to do an action that may or may not have had consensus; there is no way in which removal of that page could be considered an emergency, so it could have been discussed in the usual way at MfD followed by DR. (or speedy followed by DR, if is was really abusive or advocacy) . If people have power, there is a temptation to use it. There are some pages in user space that I regard as harmful to the proper purpose of WP--some deal with AP or other areas where   AE is available. If I nominated them under MfD, most would probably not be deleted, but if I deleted them as AE, most of them probably would not get the necessary clear consensus to restore. Most active admins I know probably have  some pages in mind similarly. If there's precedent for using this power, it will be used again. Arbitrary unilateral power is dangerous; some is necessary, but we should only have what is actually necessary, not everything that might conceivably be necessary under circumstances we cannot presently specify. (Getting back to AP, there a current RW analogy).  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
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)

Statement by Xymmax
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 have to confess that I'm finding this conversation to be a bit frustrating. It would be helpful to me if each of the committee members would address the core issue here: under what circumstances may the committee delete (or I suppose, order deleted) a page. I'm not talking about the individual members of the committee, all of whom are trusted oversighters and admins, and have enormous discretion to act under that authority, rather I mean the committee as a group. DS are simply delegated powers, and the committee can only delegate powers that it has. So I ask, when, committee members, are you empowered to order deletion? Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  18:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wnt
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)

Statement by Spartaz
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)
 * Can we have an update on this please or are you going to prove my autocorrect right? Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * alas, my autocorrect was right and you are going to give super Mario precedence. Bearing in mind that a higher level of consensus is required to overturn an ae action than a normal deletion you really are giving outlier admins carte blanch to do what the hell they like and stick two fingers up to consensus. Can you clarify if deletion decisions can be appealed here if AE choses not to overturn super mario? Spartaz Humbug! 20:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fish and karate
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). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
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)


 * ,, , and the rest of the arbs: Part of the sticking point is when you write "outside of the deletion policy" do you mean all of WP:Deletion policy? Deletion policy includes, "Deletion review" , and WP:UDP. So, it seems you are not making things much clearer and are setting up further confusion, of the kind we see on this page with Bishonen's un-deletion.
 * Is the community sanctioned, "Deletion Review" the process of review for these, so rare, almost unheard of, discretionary deletions? In particular, the un-deletion aspects (WP:UDP) that make for an informed community decision?  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck
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)


 * P.S. I would like to echo others in this discussion in their praise of GoldenRing and Bishonen for their collegiality throughout this debate, and of the fact that this was brought to ARCA as a debate on principles rather than specifics. Deryck C. 17:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
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 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)

Statement by EdChem
I think that the approach proposed by – to make it clear that deletions are not possible as an AE action – is the best way forward. I recognise the concern that 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:
 * nothing in the DS policy restricts an admin from acting under their ordinary authority as part of addressing an AE issue – this would make clear that a deletion under the CSD guidelines, for example, or extending a block from a 1 year under AE to indefinite beyond that under ordinary authority remain available.
 * any and all admin actions that are not explicitly available under the DS policy as AE-protected actions that may be undertaken are limited by the ordinary discretion and authority available to admins and subject to the usual procedures with which those actions are associated.
 * any action taken relating to an AE issue under ordinary authority is not protected by the DS appeals restrictions and are addressed under standard procedures relating to admin actions – this makes clear that DRV and REFUND remain as they are and that appeals from a block beyond the 12 months of AE protection can be actioned in the usual ways.

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)


 * You said 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.
 * Firstly, I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that there are "AE admins" and "non-AE admins." I think a wiser approach is to consider that there are admins and that they can take actions under their ordinary authority and/or actions taken under DS / AE authority.  The former actions are subject to ordinary procedures, the latter have special procedures and protections.
 * Under what I am suggesting, an action in violation of an ArbCom sanction is eligible for any (appropriate) response authorised under DS and attracts additional protections. Any other action is taken under ordinary authority and subject to ordinary protections.  The difference lies in what action is taken (DS authorised or not) rather than in by whom it is taken (AE admin or not).
 * There is no uncertainty about where things are discussed / appealed. Either the action is authorised in DS and entitled to additional protections, or it is an action under ordinary authority and subject to standard procedures.
 * In the specific case, it would be clear that 's action was not authorised by DS and so was an ordinary deletion action, reviewable at DRV at (correctly) reversed as unjustified under policy. This is not to suggest that GR should face a sanction, though a general reminder that DS authorises specific actions and not any action that an admin might feel is desirable might be appropriate.
 * If a page is created in direct violation of an ArbCom sanction, it is likely to be a candidate for deletion under CSD or AfD / MfD / TfD etc procedures. If a case of a page that is truly a direct violation of an ArbCom sanction but not eligible for deletion under existing policy is ever found, it should be subject to a discussion.  Such a case would either demonstrate a gap in deletion policy, which the community should discuss and address, or an ArbCom sanction that is questionable in its basis, which is also something that should lead to a wider discussion.  If it was something so bad that immediate action was needed and yet no policy justification was available, we have IAR or appealing to the WMF for an OFFICE action as potential solutions.
 * Finally, I fear that your form of words risks unintended consequences. As AGK notes, it is vague which invites wikilawyering – what if the deletion policy is uncertain over a controversial change with an RfC underway and it is that area that may or may not be policy that relates to the page?  Adding potential DS appeal / modification protections just adds unnecessary controversy, as the present deletion situation demonstrates.  Also, as I noted above, if deletion is a special case under DS, what else that is mentioned in DS is not similarly special?  What about things not mentioned in the DS procedures?  I agree with you on the desirability of clarity but don't want to create uncertainty in other areas in the process.  EdChem (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
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 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)

Statement by Ymblanter
Note that earlier today I closed the AE appeal 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)
 * Unclosed, following objections from Goldenring--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
- 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)

Statement by Mojoworker
If the final motion passes (as it appears it will), you may also want to clarify WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures. 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)
 * I note that Premeditated Chaos may be concerned (and rightly concerned in my view) that this wording would make explicit that deletion is a valid AE action, which it appears is what you're trying to avoid with your final motion. And perhaps it's making policy on content as well. But I'm glad i don't have to figure it out – I guess that's why y'all get paid the big bucks. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 2A0C:E300:0:0:0:0:0:23
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)

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

Gun control: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed your comment in the survey section as that falls under the Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion section. That section is reserved for members of the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm still looking into the aspects of this, but as a general principle AE does give admins the discretion to " impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page oprotection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project", and if the admin considers that the "other reasonable measure" is deletion of a page, that would for me fall within the admin's discretion, so my response to point 1 is yes. That does not mean I think this current deletion is appropriate or reasonable, but that the principle of page deletion is within an AE admin's discretion. And it is important that the community adheres to ArbCom processes such that any ArbCom sanction can only be reversed by following appropriate procedures. So a) undoing an ArbCom enforcement without authority for doing so is a violation of the process, and b) appealing the enforcement in a venue other than the appropriate one is a violation of the process. As such for point 2 my response is yes in principle, and for point 3, it is no in principle. It is sometimes that an AE admin makes a mistake, and the process do allow for other users to question page restrictions, but they should follow process. As for this particular incident - were all the due processes followed? Was Dlthewave given an appropriate warning that DS applied to the page under question? And was the template Template:Ds/editnotice  applied to the page in question? I am still looking at the page in question, and would like some more rationale behind why the page was considered to fall foul of "believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". What was the particular harm you saw in the page ? My thinking at this stage, even with a convincing rationale for the page deletion, is that the unusual nature of the page restriction (deletion) and lack of clarity in this matter is such that I am not seeing any sanctionable behaviour for Bishonen's advice to take the matter to DRV. As regards undeleting the page. It's been a while since I got involved in DRV, but I don't recall it being a part of the process that pages were undeleted. And while we do give admins discretion to userfy pages on request, I don't think it should be considered that undoing an AE enforcement without first getting clear consensus at an appropriate venue is something ArbCom would be willing to overlook. That may have been a step too far, even with the confusions about the process., could you give us some of your thinking behind why you undeleted the page? SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that - it's been a while since I had anything to do with DRV. Are all articles automatically undeleted for DRV, or is it just a selected few? And if it is a selected few what is the criteria for undeleting, and on average what percentage of articles are undeleted? SilkTork (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that - very useful. So articles on DRV which are requested to be undeleted are done so, and in this case you were requested. I strike my questions to Black Kite, as your response has given me the appropriate information. SilkTork (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of the unique nature of this AE action I'm not seeing that Bishonen has done anything sanctionable, though for the avoidance of future doubt, if my colleagues agree with me, I think we need to make it clear that nobody should undo an AE action without first getting clear consensus to do so at an appropriate venue. SilkTork (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I phrased my question awkwardly. I can see why you had concerns about the page, what I'm asking really is why you felt the need to delete the page rather than raise your concerns with Dlthewave, or blank it, or amend it in some other manner. Your deletion, albeit done under AE, was a speedy deletion. The closest justification under speedy is G10. Did you (do you still) feel that G10 was the rationale for deletion? Or was it purely based on the user page policy, which says that negative material should be removed or blanked, but doesn't say deleted. It is the decision to delete rather than use other options that I'd like to hear your thinking on. While I support in principle the notion that an AE admin have within their discretion the option to delete a page, my thinking is this should be done within policy, so I'm looking for the policy that allows deletion in this instance. At the moment I'm seeing a page that can be considered to be of concern, but it appears to me that the appropriate solution would be discussion about the page rather than deletion of the page. I've not looked closely - is there discussion about the page that you can direct us to? SilkTork (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes things a lot clearer. My thinking is that everyone here has acted in good faith and with a view that what they were doing was within policy and procedure. While I feel that in principle an AE admin can delete a page as part of DS, that such a deletion should meet with policy, and if the deletion is not to go through a community discussion process (ie, is a Speedy deletion), then such a deletion should meet Speedy criteria. So, as in this case the deletion was not done under Speedy, the page should instead have been blanked. As this deletion was done under AE, albeit - in my opinion - inappropriately, it should be discussed at WP:AE rather than DRV. At the moment we have discussion at both DRV and AE. Rather than create a constitutional crisis, one venue or other should give up the right to discuss it; or perhaps, GoldenRing, you could reflect on if an AE enforced blanking serves the purpose as well as a deletion, and agree on the DRV that it can be undeleted, so we can resolve that discussion there, and you can then blank the page under AE and Dlthewave can appeal the blanking at AE. SilkTork (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "" What I mean is that ArbCom is a part of the community and runs with the consent of the community. All the things that we do we do with the consent of the community, and any of the things that we are allowed to do, such as topic bans, etc, have evolved out of consensus. The one big thing that ArbCom has is that any legitimate ArbCom action is binding, and can not be undone by a community discussion at, say DRV, but only be undone by an appropriate ArbCom process. But even that big thing is done by the consent of the community, and if the community don't like what ArbCom are doing they can at any point say, "Fuck this for a game of soldiers", and decide to close ArbCom. Yes, an AE admin can do what they reasonably feel is needed, but only within the consent that the community have already given us, and the community have not given us explicit consent to delete out of process. This particular deletion is actually a minor issue, and everyone here is discussing this as an interesting point of process, but if you'd deleted a featured article on the main page or Jimbo's talkpage, we'd have a serious issue on our hands. There are necessary limits to what ArbCom can do, and we must be aware of them and abide by them, and if in doubt seek consensus. SilkTork (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My view is that deletion of a page is permitted as an enforcement action under discretionary sanctions. Indeed, there are intentionally very few limits on what sanctions an administrator can impose under discretionary sanctions. As such, I see Bishonen's undeletion as a violation of WP:AC/DS, albeit one that was carried out in good faith with the best of intentions while uncertain of whether the arbitration enforcement action was permissible. I will note that WP:AC/DS (bullet point 4) indicates that any action taken under discretionary sanctions are presumed valid and proper until a successful appeal, so if there were a question over whether deletion is a permissible discretionary sanction, that should have come to ARCA initially. All AE actions can only be appealed at WP:AE or WP:AN, so this cannot be appealed at WP:DRV. Leaving a note at WP:DRV directing interested editors toward such an appeal would be appropriate in this situation. I decline to answer 's fourth question for two reasons. Ideally, ArbCom should not be the first point of appeal of a discretionary sanction. Separately, the admin who placed a discretionary sanction may not appeal their own sanction. This is especially important for an appeal that potentially skips AE/AN, since that would deprive other editors of the ability to appeal at those venues under our procedures. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Such deletions do not need to meet our deletion policy, as a side note. Discretionary sanctions are intended to allow administrators the discretion to handle cases not covered by our typical policies and guidelines in particularly contentious areas. Administrators should be cautioned that overzealous deletions as AE actions are likely to be overturned. In the case of repeated occurrences, this could result in a restriction from carrying out deletions as AE actions or from carrying out AE actions as a whole. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not be recusing myself for multiple reasons. First, simply taking a somewhat similar action in the past does not preclude one from reviewing unrelated administrative actions. If this were not true, truly absurd arguments could emerge (e.g. "Since X arbitrator has previously voted against desysop for an administrator who did Y, they must recuse when a different administrator did Y in a different set of circumstances"). Second, and most importantly, I did not delete any pages as an AE action. After a page was deleted as an AE action, and without making any comment on the validity of the deletion, I undeleted it to perform a necessary history merge and then restored the action. My role was to undo a copy-and-paste move that was non-compliant with the licensing requirements on Wikipedia. That is the only action I took with relation to that page. I had no role in the AE action. Tangentially, I see you saying that deletion of any page must, be necessity, remove content. WP:CONTENT defines content as things in the mainspace and related navigational pages, so this deletion, which affected only a user page unrelated to any mainspace material, was not "content" under that definition. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So I've looked into that deletion more. I didn't remember it very well, since it happened in 2017. First of all, it actually wasn't an AE action. It was a general sanctions action, which is similar, but not identical. The authority there derives from the community, not ArbCom, and whether GS deletions in areas where general sanctions are approved is permitted is entirely a question for the community. This discussion/clarification has no bearing on that. Second, I actually declined to delete that page under CSD prior to NeilN's deletion, looking through the edit history. Lastly, the deletion appears to be because, an editor who I recall being an extremely disruptive civil POV pusher who is now indefinitely blocked, forked off a conspiracy theory into its own article which treated the conspiracy as fact after consensus had been to take it out of the main article for that subject. While I would not have done the same action, I see why NeilN did it. The page was very clearly created purely to circumvent the settled consensus and force other editors to re-debate the removal of that content. In that sense, I think the deletion was supported by WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR. NeilN's deletion did clearly achieve what editors had already reached a consensus to do - remove a seriously fringe conspiracy theory from mainspace. See here for more detail. Hopefully, that provides more context to NeilN's deletion. Any further discussion on the "general sanctions" tangent should presumably go to a venue where the community can clarify whether deletion is allowed under general sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this isn't what you intend to say, but your example of a mainspace AE deletion specifically to avoid a DRV discussion comes across as an admin using AE actions to avoid scrutiny. I would not support anything like that. AE actions should never be performed with the sole intent of avoiding scrutiny of a borderline action. I don't think moving the discussion from DRV to AE or AN is likely to decrease drama over a questionable deletion, in any event. See this whole ARCA as evidence of that, honestly. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to minimize disruption in contentious areas in order to allow Wikipedia's usual processes to proceed smoothly - they are not a replacement for them. Admin.expect backs that up by stating that admins should "allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum." In other words, enact the minimal necessary sanction to allow editing to proceed as usual, through typical community processes.Sanctions.page permits admins to enact a number of suggested measures, including "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." There is nothing explicitly prohibiting deletion as an AE action. However, any AE enforcement must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, and I think it would be very rare for deletion to meet that standard. By its very nature, deletion does more to limit the editing freedom of responsible contributors than any other page-level sanction. Even fully-protected pages can be edited via edit request. For that reason, I would argue that use of deletion as an AE action should have a much higher threshold to pass before it can be considered reasonable, necessary, and proportionate.In my opinion, deletion as an AE action should not be used unless it can be demonstrated that there is significant disruption coming as a direct result of the page in question, and that there is no other reasonable way to mitigate or prevent that disruption. I understand that this is a fairly high standard, but that's the point - generally speaking, there are other tools available than an AE deletion, including regular community deletion processes. By analogy, you could cut your steak with a chainsaw, but it's much more sensible to go find a steak knife.With regards to this particular action, I don't think the high threshold I would expect to justify an AE deletion was met. There was nothing in the page that was so egregious that it necessitated immediate removal. There was no edit-warring on or about the page. There was no indication that taking the page to MfD would have caused more disruption than any other controversial XfD. In other words, I'm not convinced this use of deletion was reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. I don't think GoldenRing should be sanctioned for it, but I do think it was unnecessary, and in general, should not set a precedent for wider use of deletion as an AE action.In the same vein, I don't think Bishonen's temporary undeletion for DRV is a violation of sanctions.modify. It is customary to undelete pages at DRV so they can be viewed and judged by non-administrators; her intention there was clearly to allow the DRV process to proceed as normally as possible, not to simply reverse GoldenRing and walk away. I don't see that as sanctionable.I think we should heavily discourage the use of deletion as an AE action, but if we are not going to prohibit it, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow DRV to review AE deletions. The crowd there is going to be familiar with the deletion policy and evaluating administrators' application of it, which I think is relevant. However, the question of where to appeal these actions is not a hill I'll die on compared to the rest of my thoughts on the matter. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Feeling obliged to be less brief, but I find this a simple answer. I disagree with my colleagues.  Deleting is not a valid action under discretionary sanctions, GoldenRing's action did not enjoy protection under WP:AC/DS, and we can consequently dispose of the other procedural questions.In the procedure for Discretionary Sanctions, placing sanctions is authorised for contentious areas.  The nature of a sanction is left to the judgment and discretion of administrators, though it is loosely defined as "any sanction, restriction, or other remedy".  However, I find it axiomatic that sanctions are actions that apply to a person.  Discretionary Sanctions are a method of regulating conduct, not content.  Blocking, warning, or topic-banning  for conduct that disrupts the area of conflict would have been a discretionary sanction.  Deleting the page on which  performed that disruptive conduct was not a discretionary sanction.  Even broad, page-level actions taken by administrators (eg "all these pages are subject to 1RR") apply to users, not pages.  The Discretionary Sanctions system started out of a recognition that an area of conflict can be improved if the dramatis personae can be made to behave.  Deleting pages is not within that scope.   AGK  &#9632;  11:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I know I'm being annoying by dropping in on this waaaaaay late, but.... reading most of the comments here is sort of like reading a discussion about whether or not angels need a public performance permit before dancing on the head of a pin. Forgetting all the "paragraph 4 of subsection 2b of policy G" stuff, was this action useful? It seems like, on balance, it wasn't - the net effect was to attract a lot more attention to an otherwise-obscure page and occupy a lot of community time without seeming to have much effect on the person hosting this potentially-problematic material. (Am I missing something, or have they not commented on this topic?) For this specific instance, it seems like the easier route would have been the boring one - just take it to MfD. For any future hypothetical instance, the most useful answer to "can I delete stuff using DS?" is "maybe, but you're almost certainly better off doing something else". Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but "maybe" is the answer to just about every question of the form "is XYZ against the rules?" :) I mean, within reason - obviously copyvio and poop vandalism are out. But if it's all just internal back-office stuff, "you can try, but it might not work" is IMO a better answer than having us all look at this particular set of circumstances and reach a decision that turns out not to be a good fit for the next time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of clarity, I am inactive on this request despite having returned to active status as most of it has taken place while I was away. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 21:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey
To see if we need to take this discussion further, it may be helpful to take a quick survey:


 * Can AE admins delete pages under "other reasonable measures" as part of the enforcement process?
 * A) No
 * B) Yes
 * C) Yes, but only per deletion policy


 * C SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * B, with a strong note that deletions well outside the deletion policy will almost certainly be overturned at AE (or ARCA). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * B, as per Rob. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * B, in the sense that it's not explicitly prohibited. However as I've stated above it should be avoided unless there is absolutely no other way to mitigate some kind of serious disruption. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A.  AGK  &#9632;  23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C Katietalk 15:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A/sorta C. The fundamental principle of arbitration is that it deals with conduct, not content. Deletion falls firmly in the "content" category. So even if the DS could be read as including deletion, ArbCom doesn't have the remit to authorise it. Of course as an admin GR is free to delete pages within the deletion policy as he wishes, but calling it an AE action doesn't make a difference, except to muddy the waters as to whether the community can overturn it (they can). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Post-survey discussion

 * Assuming that everyone who supports B would support C if B would not pass, the rough consensus here appears to be for C. Should we propose a motion to that effect? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be useful. Would you be able to do that Rob? SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My choice of "B" was based on the wording of DS as it is currently written - ie, deletion is currently permitted because it is not explicitly forbidden - not because I think it is a good idea to include. I would oppose any motion which codified deletion as an acceptable use of DS (even option C, which is a meaningless distinction in my opinion) and would much rather we explicitly forbid DS deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I'm having trouble understanding other's views on this, because like AGK I think the answer is very obviously A. Could someone please explain how a motion along the lines of B or C would be compatible with WP:ARBPOL, "the Committee does not rule on content"? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I view acceptable DS deletions as falling into the category of "removal of content pages outside the mainspace that is the product of a user conduct issue". For instance, if an editor in the American politics topic area kept a user page in their userspace that compiled "coverage" of conspiracy theories surrounding some modern politicians (e.g. Murder of Seth Rich, Pizzagate conspiracy theory) from fringe sources that could never be integrated into an article, I would consider a deletion of that userpage under DS to be proper. Such a user page would serve no encyclopedic purpose and would clearly represent the product of a user conduct issue (WP:NOTHERE) while not falling within the traditional CSD criteria. (U5 could apply, but not if the editor also had substantial edits in the mainspace.) Taking such a page to MfD would clearly result in deletion, but would be undesirable because it would bring attention to the fringe sources and potentially attract a disruptive brigade from off-wiki, as such discussions often do in that topic area. I think that type of behavior is exactly what DS is intended to solve: user conduct issues in particularly contentious topic areas. Sometimes, those conduct issues permeate entire pages, in which case deletion would be appropriate. I would be highly skeptical of a DS deletion in the mainspace, to be clear. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've altered my above comment, since it was pointed out to me that WP:CONTENT defines content as stuff in the mainspace (and certain navigational pages). In that sense, this user page was quite literally not content. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My thinking on this is more with regard to challenging an ArbCom enforcement action. The special aspect of ArbCom is that any decision is binding, and any enforcement of those decisions can only be challenged within prescribed process. If the community wishes to take away that aspect of ArbCom (as effectively has happened here) then that diminishes the special status of ArbCom. Now, if the community decides that ArbCom is no longer needed, and that we have reached a stage where the community can deal effectively with all disputes, then that's not a problem, but if the community wishes to retain ArbCom and its special aspect, then any action by an AE admin in the name of ArbCom can only be challenged and overturned in the appropriate venue. What we have here is an unusual situation in that an AE admin deleted a page under AE, and there is a question as to if this was allowable, and that question was resolved not by appropriate ArbCom process, but within a standard process. That for me is the part we need to clear up. But in order to clear that up we need to see if there is a consensus in the Committee for what is allowable. I can't see how deleting out of process is allowable because ArbCom has not been given that power. And I don't see that an AE admin is restricted in what they can do, so that they have less powers than any other admin. When an AE admin is allowed to do what is "reasonable" I am seeing that as "anything that any admin can do within policy" with the understanding that when an AE admin does that action it can only be challenged within the AE process. The significant difference for me between an action done by an admin under AE and an action done by an admin not under AE, is that the AE action has to be challenged under AE rules, and the non AE action has to be challenged under standard rules. A deletion under policy done by an admin not under AE can be challenged at DRV, and a deletion under policy done by an admin under AE can only be challenged under AE process. If we as a Committee can agree that an AE admin can do reasonable actions within policy then the special aspect of ArbCom and AE enforcement is retained, and any future such actions can be debated with AE process. For me, whichever venue this was discussed in, the outcome would have been the same - that the page should not have been deleted because it was out of process.
 * Short version: An AE admin shouldn't be restricted in what actions within policy they can do. An AE admin should not do an action not allowed by policy. Questions regarding if an AE action was within policy should only be discussed within AE process.
 * If we can get together a motion which says this, there can be a due process discussion at AE regarding the deletion, it can be formally overturned, and if an AE admin feels it appropriate, the page can be blanked (not deleted) under an AE action which can then be challenged at AE. SilkTork (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not all text on Wikipedia is content. WP:CONTENT defines "content" as things in the mainspace and related navigational pages. Removal of text or deletion of pages do not necessarily affect content if not undertaken in the mainspace (or related namespaces that generate content in the mainspace, like Category, Template, etc.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that all of our core content policies also refer to articles as the content. I'm a bit surprised that editors are making the apparent claim that any writing at all on Wikipedia is "content", which is implicit in the argument that any page deletion in any namespace would necessarily be policing content. Is this discussion right now content, in your view? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm (of course) not saying ArbCom has jurisdiction over everything not in mainspace, just like I'm not saying ArbCom has jurisdiction over everything in mainspace merely because discretionary sanctions allow page protections there. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over past cases, including the relevant topic areas involved where we have enacted discretionary sanctions. To the extent those areas overlap with things not in the mainspace, I think deletion is one valid tool of many that admins could use when appropriate and warranted by the level of disruption inherent in a particular page. I think it should be used extremely sparingly, and ultimately, the community can determine at AE whether any particular deletion is warranted. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I strongly disagree with that reasoning. AE is a tool for allowing community processes to occur smoothly. It is not a replacement for those processes, no matter how controversial they have the potential to be. If, as you have argued, there's disruption XfD or DRV or ANI, you use targeted sanctions to remove the disruption and allow the community to proceed as normal. You don't just get to decide that something might be problematic and delete it because it might cause too much of a fuss. By your logic, one could justify deleting anything that might be controversial. Too many people arguing about a BLP AfD? Just delete it. Tired of people arguing about an India-related navbox? Delete it. No. No way. I absolutely object to the use of DS as a shortcut around community processes. That is absolutely not their purpose. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , sanctions under AE are supposed to be deployed when there is a problem, in order to control the problem so the normal process of editing and consensus-building can resume. You issue a TBAN when someone has demonstrated an inability to edit in an area without causing problems, so that everyone else in that area can get back to editing normally (and, hopefully, so the TBANned editor can go edit constructively elsewhere). You don't issue a TBAN pre-emptively before someone causes a problem on the assumption that they might. In the same vein, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an XfD/DRV/ANI discussion will be so problematic that preemptively deleting a page is the best solution, especially when there are lesser sanctions available to handle disruption as it comes up. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary sanctions procedure


(1) Proposed:


 * Support
 * Proposed. I understand that some colleagues have asserted views to the contrary, above, but we need to progress towards a decision.  I simply don't think we want page deletion to be used as a means of enforcing user conduct standards.  This one edge case (after over a decade) should not be used to expand the scope of DS or the rights of Enforcing Administrators.   AGK  &#9632;  14:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this as is, but perhaps others might be happier with the addition of "to delete pages outside of the deletion policy ", in line with the results of our straw poll above? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as written. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)]
 * Support, with Joe's amendment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Because this does not solve the problem. Alternative proposed. SilkTork (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Move to abstain to help move this forward. SilkTork (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Moved back to oppose in favour of new motion regarding challenging enforcement actions. SilkTork (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving here, in favor of the second version. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I still agree with myself up above that this is not really a problem that needs a new rule. The answer should be 'maybe', as in, probably not, but if you make a good argument for a specific oddball case then sure. This particular set of circumstances didn't fit, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible idea that must be forbidden forever. I agree with AGK's first point - we probably don't want to make this a habit - but have the opposite feeling on the second, that is, if in over a decade we've come across only this one edge case, then that means we don't need to write any new stuff and choosing not to do so is not "expanding" anything. Sorry to anyone who's been reading this hoping for "clarity" or "bright lines" - I just don't think this is an issue calling out for definitive resolution. If it starts happening five times a month, we should revisit it then. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per OR. Katietalk 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Opabinia. I don't see this as needing a hard-line rule to forbid all deletions under AE ever, although I agree that in this case it was not necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per OR <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * For now. I may oppose, but my thoughts at the moment are basically that this comes up so infrequently and causes so much drama that an enforcing administrator should just use the other tools available to them in such a situation, even if they aren't quite as good a fit. If an editor is creating whole user pages that contain polemical statements in an area with discretionary sanctions, just block them for disruption. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Moved back to oppose. SilkTork (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators


 * My phone has learned "arbcom" by now, but the top alternative is "a boom". I think our phones are trying to tell us something... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary sanctions procedure (2)


(1) Proposed:


 * Support
 * Putting forward an alternative. 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 above motion does not protect against such a situation, and so does not solve this problem. SilkTork (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Moving to abstain to move this forward. SilkTork (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as first choice, as this is the amendment Joe mentioned above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * No, because if the deletion is within the deletion policy, then there is no need to use DS as a reason for deletion in the first place. If it is that problematic, chances are it will fit under a speedy criteria (such as G10 if it is an attack page or G5 if created in violation of an existing sanction). If not, there is no reason it cannot be taken through the relevant XfD process (which can be controlled with DS sanctions if that causes problems). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First, per PMC. We are providing for discretionary sanction to not include deletions.  We are not prohibiting an administrator from also deleting a page under their separate powers.  We are, in passing, preventing absurd consequences like "Are these deletions subject to DRV?" or "Can deleted text be provided and adapted under WP:REFUND?"  I should also oppose because the clause "per the deletion policy" is a vague, catch-all statement lacking the precision that we know administrators expect to be in place before they act.  I am not sure I clearly understand what parts of the deletion policy it means now.  Finally, I do not see what ambiguity is left behind by removing deletion as a D.S. as in the first motion – I have perhaps misunderstood 's contribution on this point.  Also, I should repeat my earlier vote – deleting pages has not (except for minor cases under ARBBLP) been a form of discretionary sanction.  Changing that now would be unnecessary and unwise.   AGK  &#9632;  22:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per OR. I can't get behind making policy like this based on one instance of hundreds. Katietalk 15:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, but also because I don't see why it couldn't go through the standard deletion process. Page deletions are not normally something that are useful when discretionary sanctions are involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose in favour of new motion on challenging enforcement actions. SilkTork (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * SilkTork (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators

Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications



 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * I think this is the essential point of concern, and would cover any future actions where people are unsure if an enforcement action is appropriate or not. Querying an action, such as deleting a page, is entirely appropriate, but to avoid confusion and internal conflict, we need to establish exactly where such a query should take place, and that the action should not be undone until it is established that it was in fact out of process. SilkTork (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what important note 4 is intended to say, but your text is much clearer, . Do you mind if we rework this to just replace important note 4 with this text? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We always can revisit this issue if there are still practical problems where deletion and arb enforcement meet.  AGK  &#9632;  14:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've deleted "such as DRV" because it could be taken as implying that deletion is a valid AE action (which we couldn't agree on above); I don't think the example is essential to the meaning. Otherwise, I agree this is a sensible procedure and, had it been followed in this case, we might not have ended up with such a lengthy dispute. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with this, but for the record I don't like that we haven't come to a conclusion on AE deletion, and I suspect the issue will return. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 15:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Comments by arbitrators


 * User:SmokeyJoe. Yes, I understand the concern regarding slow moving Committee decisions; however, the process for challenging an Arbitration Enforcement, if no satisfaction can be gained from the enforcing admin, is generally to raise the issue at "AE", though "AN" may also be used. And those processes are generally about the same speed as DRV. And the motion does allow for further discussion at a venue such as DRV if the outcome of the initial discussion at AE is that the enforcement was not appropriate, but has not yet been reversed. The idea is to prevent the situation we are currently in, in which there is some doubt as to where an action should first be discussed. Also, in order to preserve the special status of the Arbitration Committee (that decisions are final and binding), this underlines that the principle is to ask questions and wait for a decision before reversing an AE action. SilkTork (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - yes, tweak away. I am firmly in favour of collaboration. SilkTork (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Before we enact this, can we adjust the “or discussed” wording? The claims of a gag order above are overblown, but we should make clear we aren’t prohibiting a discussion on user talk, etc. “being reversed or altered at another venue”? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping that I copyedited the above motion to be clearer and more grammatically sound. I haven't touched the "or discussed" wording, since that's more substantive and should be discussed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added "formally" before "discussed". We don't wish to gag informal discussion, but what we want to avoid is having two formal discussions happening side by side which is both redundant effort and may lead to internal conflict if the venues arrive at different conclusions. SilkTork (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That works for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, looks fine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm good with "formally discussed". ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)